|
[M] Liquid [M]
Many features of this map were as a result of a poll from the TL Community!
DISCLAIMER: THIS MAP IS NOT PUBLIC YET, IT IS UNDER GOING EXTENSIVE PRIVATE TESTING. PLEASE ADD ME @ GRIFFITH.583 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TEST IT, HIGH DIAMOND/MASTERS PLEASE.
Here are the main features of the map:
Map Preview
+ Show Spoiler +
+2v2/1v1 Map
+Long rush distances
+Easy to take natural
+Easy to take 3rd
+Double Bridge Choke outside of natural making it easier for Terran and Protoss to wall-off
+Open middle ground
And.. the obligatory:
+Griffith's Back-door™, explained in-depth)
+Griffith's Bridges™ (with awesome sauce scripting to make them show up on the minimaps too!)
Griffith's Back-door™
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/21br1.png) By default, the backdoor comprises of two adjacent 30-mineral mineral patches that allows "small" units to pass through, they are: Zerg: Drone/Zergling/Baneling/Hydralisk Terran: SCV/Marine/Marauder/Ghost/Reaper Protoss: Probe/Zealot/High Templar/Dark Templar/Sentry LoS Blocker prevents vision of the other side unless a small unit has squeezed through. By mining the 30 minerals, the backdoor can be "opened" to allow large units to pass through. Note that Terran has the option of throwing down a mule to open it quickly.
Griffith's Bridges™
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WyjVr.png) Each bridge requires a single 3x3 structure to wall-off. Meaning that walling off all 3 bridges (to seal natural and 3rd) requires 2 3x3 structures, 2 2x2 structures, or 3 3x3 structures. The double-width land bridges WILL spread creep, however, the TRIPLE and SINGLE width bridges will NOT spread creep. Zerg players can still use an overlord to generate creep, and then use a queen to lay a creep tumour! The bridges also show up on the minimap! (This was surprisingly difficult)
Original Poll:
+ Show Spoiler +Hi TLers, I've to set out to make the "perfect" melee map, based on poll results from the community. Please vote: Poll: 2 player or 4 Player?4 (462) 82% 2 (101) 18% 563 total votes Your vote: 2 player or 4 Player? (Vote): 2
(Vote): 4
Poll: What type of Natural Expansion?Outside of Base but closed and easy to defend (Lost Temple) (367) 77% Outside of Base but open and hard to defend (Xel'naga Caverns) (61) 13% In-Base (Crevasse/Jungle Basin) (50) 10% 478 total votes Your vote: What type of Natural Expansion? (Vote): In-Base (Crevasse/Jungle Basin)
(Vote): Outside of Base but closed and easy to defend (Lost Temple)
(Vote): Outside of Base but open and hard to defend (Xel'naga Caverns)
Poll: Back-door rocks?None in main or natural (364) 78% Back-door rocks in natural (93) 20% Back-door rocks in main (10) 2% 467 total votes Your vote: Back-door rocks? (Vote): None in main or natural
(Vote): Back-door rocks in main
(Vote): Back-door rocks in natural
Poll: Third Base (second expo) preferenceClose to natural, Minerals + 2Gas (357) 82% Far from natural, Minerals + 2Gas (45) 10% Close to natural, Minerals Only (31) 7% 433 total votes Your vote: Third Base (second expo) preference (Vote): Close to natural, Minerals + 2Gas
(Vote): Close to natural, Minerals Only
(Vote): Far from natural, Minerals + 2Gas
Poll: Xel'naga Towers CoverageControl of Xel'naga provides some movement information (Shattered Temple) (212) 44% Control of Xel'naga provides lots of movement information (Xel'naga Caverns) (195) 41% No Xel'naga Towers (58) 12% Control of Xel'naga provides very little movement information (14) 3% 479 total votes Your vote: Xel'naga Towers Coverage (Vote): Control of Xel'naga provides lots of movement information (Xel'naga Caverns)
(Vote): Control of Xel'naga provides some movement information (Shattered Temple)
(Vote): Control of Xel'naga provides very little movement information
(Vote): No Xel'naga Towers
Poll: How many max possible bases per player7 (231) 51% 6 (149) 33% 5 (64) 14% 4 (11) 2% 3 (2) 0% 457 total votes Your vote: How many max possible bases per player (Vote): 3
(Vote): 4
(Vote): 5
(Vote): 6
(Vote): 7
Poll: Destructible Rocks Blocking expansionsDestructible Rocks Blocking 4th Base (3rd Expo) (227) 46% No Destructible Rocks blocking mining bases (223) 46% Destructible Rocks Blocking 3rd Base (2nd Expo) (39) 8% 489 total votes Your vote: Destructible Rocks Blocking expansions (Vote): Destructible Rocks Blocking 3rd Base (2nd Expo)
(Vote): Destructible Rocks Blocking 4th Base (3rd Expo)
(Vote): No Destructible Rocks blocking mining bases
Poll: Open or Narrow CenterSemi-Open (Shattered Temple) (293) 65% Open (Python) (136) 30% Narrow (24) 5% 453 total votes Your vote: Open or Narrow Center (Vote): Open (Python)
(Vote): Semi-Open (Shattered Temple)
(Vote): Narrow
Poll: Number of Total Gold Bases2 (291) 62% 0 (145) 31% 4 (37) 8% 473 total votes Your vote: Number of Total Gold Bases (Vote): 4
(Vote): 2
(Vote): 0
Poll: Air Harassability of Main and ExpoSemi-open (Metalopolis/Lost Temple) (284) 69% Very little (ie. very little air space at all behind mineral lines, Match Point) (92) 22% Very open (Scrap Station, Crevasse) (36) 9% 412 total votes Your vote: Air Harassability of Main and Expo (Vote): Very open (Scrap Station, Crevasse)
(Vote): Semi-open (Metalopolis/Lost Temple)
(Vote): Very little (ie. very little air space at all behind mineral lines, Match Point)
Poll: Tall grass and such for possible proxies/hiding tech in Main?No smoke screens/grass/etc in main (227) 56% Half Open (Exposes open "air" side, old metalopolis) (135) 34% Closed (Grass completely surrounding 360 degrees, new metalopolis) (40) 10% 402 total votes Your vote: Tall grass and such for possible proxies/hiding tech in Main? (Vote): Half Open (Exposes open "air" side, old metalopolis)
(Vote): Closed (Grass completely surrounding 360 degrees, new metalopolis)
(Vote): No smoke screens/grass/etc in main
Cheers!
-Griffith
|
|
|
This should be split into 5 separate polls (ideally), for each race option (Z, P, T, R) and a mixed one.
Just for curiosity's sake.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
This look great! I'm sure that these questions in this forum, in particular, will help to generate an amazing map. Other things I'd consider putting to poll (but maybe not, as this might be more technical or race specific)
Main base Size?
Airspace?
Orientation / Rush Distance / No spawns on close positions?
|
Should you add another poll in for things like-
Distance between mains or naturals?
Use of high ground and cliffs?
Tall grass and such for possible proxies/hiding tech?
Size of the main itself? (for effectiveness of drop/nydus plays)
Number of attack paths? Not sure if this is applicable with the option for narrow/open/semi open already there.
Don't know if that kind of stuff would help, but more information can't hurt.
|
Thanks guys I've added in some of your poll suggestions
|
people basically described Fighting Spirit.
|
I think you should put in something like the back door expos on destination.
|
On March 07 2011 15:11 GrapeD wrote:
I think you should put in something like the back door expos on destination.
min blocks dont work anymore, its now imba to terran due to stupid mules
|
After taking the polls i felt like contributed something :O
|
On March 07 2011 15:32 mR.bONG789 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2011 15:11 GrapeD wrote:
I think you should put in something like the back door expos on destination. min blocks dont work anymore, its now imba to terran due to stupid mules
mules wouldn't do anything different than a worker in destination min block.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On March 07 2011 15:48 exterior8D wrote:
After taking the polls i felt like contributed something :O
Agreed. I feel like I'm making a contribution to something great.
|
Griffith making a map? Definitely gonna be keeping in tune with this thread!
|
The only expos rocks should ever block are gold expos.
|
When you get a map designed by majority/voting committee, you end up with some very bland generic map that has no defining features and doesn't keep the viewer/observer engaged.
Look at some GSL/ICCUP maps like Testbug, the new Crevasse 1.1, Taldarim altar. They don't conform to the votes in the OP, but are nonetheless good macro based maps that produced some very good games so far if you follow the scene.
First of all, for example, your vote options are extremely limited.
Where is the 3 - player map for example?
Where is the option for the number of xel-naga towers?
How about things like reverse high ground and number of ramps?
My point is - when you do make the map, don't just do what the vote says, keep it as a rough guideline, but don't rely on it, you will never be able to please everyone.
Good luck in mapmaking!
|
Yep, Fighting Spirit was the shit. Also, I bet tileset will probly make more of a difference than you would expect in popularity
|
Kinda OT, but this reminds me of the book "Painting by Numbers: Komar and Melamid's Scientific Guide to Art" where these two guys take a bunch of surveys of different countries views on art, and the create the "ideal" painting for each country based on people's responses.
We could do the same with SC maps! Have an ideal Euro/US/Korean map or an idea Terran/Zerg/Toss map. 
|
Looking at the results so far, zerg win% on this map? %100 lol
huge map with easily defensible natural and quick third, and only semi open air, this would be better if it was vulnerable from air so the other races could put -some- sort of early pressure on a zerg, (remember that protoss/terran actually need to be able to make a zerg panic so they dont just get out macro'd and die)
I agree with the earlier sentiment that there should be 4 more of these poll's, this one as mixed and an additional poll for each race (counting random as a race)
Im also not sure why everyone is hating on the smoke (long grass) sure, we hate cheese, but its not like its hard to throw up a pylon/depo/ovie spotter in there early game, it just adds another dimension to the early game, punishes lasy people, and lures cheesy people to perform extreemly predictable and scoutable proxies.
I also agree totally with Sadist's point.
Other than that, at the very least this will be a nice chance in venue to play on such a large macro map, so thanks a lot for making the effort to start this thread and develop a map for us  all the best of luck! I hope its a sucess
|
On March 07 2011 16:39 Sadistx wrote:
When you get a map designed by majority/voting committee, you end up with some very bland generic map that has no defining features and doesn't keep the viewer/observer engaged.
Look at some GSL/ICCUP maps like Testbug, the new Crevasse 1.1, Taldarim altar. They don't conform to the votes in the OP, but are nonetheless good macro based maps that produced some very good games so far if you follow the scene.
First of all, for example, your vote options are extremely limited.
Where is the 3 - player map for example?
Where is the option for the number of xel-naga towers?
How about things like reverse high ground and number of ramps?
My point is - when you do make the map, don't just do what the vote says, keep it as a rough guideline, but don't rely on it, you will never be able to please everyone.
Good luck in mapmaking!
Add in all these options. Especially 3 player maps, which the scene currently needs more of on account of them being awesome.
This is a pretty cool initiative but I think it would be more interesting with a fuller option list.
|
Whatever it turns out to be, I suggest resisting the urge to call it Griffith's Perfect Map™
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50114 Posts
the 2 overall perfect maps in all aspects for me are fighting spirit and Triathlon
|
Well , its more a poll of 'what would you rather play on' , then 'what maps do you think are balanced and good'.
Its hard to produce the perfect map, since that doenst exist if you look at the races. If you ask 50 terrans, 50 toss and 50 zergs seperately, you get totally different results.
|
On March 07 2011 15:48 exterior8D wrote:
After taking the polls i felt like contributed something :O
yedat
|
The best maps I can think of were Fighting Spirit and Outsider.
Although SC2's mechanics don't really allow worker skipping.
|
You have to be careful, though. Making a cake this way, you would end up with one with strawberries, choclate, marzipan, carrots, cheese, icecream and jello.
Wait, that would be a pretty awsome cake. Never mind then.
|
On March 07 2011 19:48 Maginor wrote:
You have to be careful, though. Making a cake this way, you would end up with one with strawberries, choclate, marzipan, carrots, cheese, icecream and jello.
Wait, that would be a pretty awsome cake. Never mind then.
Im bringing the carrots naturally, whos in on the rest
|
great thread... also the heading should stipulate the poll and discussion perspective...
i thought i was gonna see.. just got numbers :<
reading through the results and posts... is useful
@ihasaKAROT
<3 i'm bringing choc or cheez, but one or the other
@BLinD-RawR: fighting spirit IS the best sc1 map ..or was it not python?
[leaves to go open scbw and check again )
|
from the poll results it would seem that most of the players enjoy 3 base turtle fests
|
I've avoided adding the 3 player option mainly because symmetry is difficult to preserve when the axes of symmetry are non perpendicular to each other. I've also tried to deal with the issue of # of xel'naga towers using a coverage poll, because if i do it simply based on # of towers, they could be placed in awkward positions.
|
Only one I didn't agree with the majority on was the air harass one. I play toss and dealing with muta's or MM drops is a nightmare on some maps, I feel it's because stalkers are the lowest dps/most expensive anti air (stalkers and cannons) and it takes a while and an investment to get blink or storm.
Also, against terran when they do large drops of 2+ medevacs you have to send such a large army to kill it. With stim and med evacs sending too little can be fatal, sending to much means it could be a diversion to snipe your natural. Either case can cost you the game, losing key tech in the main or losing your natural.
Mutas are just difficult because they keep you pinned and allow zerg to become greedy. The only anti air splash is storm, which takes a long time to get out so your stalkers will then be free to push out. Phoenix and blink stalkers can deal with it, if zerg goes for that huge muta ball however storm is the only really cost effective way to deal with it and be able to move out. It just costs to much to make that many cannons, stalkers and phoenix which wont help you be aggressive when they have a giant ling ball too.
|
Calgary25979 Posts
I'm kind of loling at the results. "I want no harassment opportunities and a lot of easy to defend bases. I want the middle open." Some things never change
|
On March 08 2011 02:12 Chill wrote:I'm kind of loling at the results. "I want no harassment opportunities and a lot of easy to defend bases. I want the middle open." Some things never change
Glad I'm not the only one that was amused by all the anti-proxy anti-harass map voting.
|
There needs to be a poll on map size/distances, and positional types, although I assume that might come later.
e.g. 4 way symmetrical in every way, rotation symmetry, LT/Metalopolis type. Although it's kind of boring since no one will pick rotational symmetry even though it can potentially be worked very nicely into a map.
and then rush distances from main/main and nat/nat.
|
On March 08 2011 02:31 Lonyo wrote:
There needs to be a poll on map size/distances, and positional types, although I assume that might come later.
e.g. 4 way symmetrical in every way, rotation symmetry, LT/Metalopolis type. Although it's kind of boring since no one will pick rotational symmetry even though it can potentially be worked very nicely into a map.
and then rush distances from main/main and nat/nat.
I think you kinda nailed it... the amount of detail put into a (good) map is far far more than a poll can determine. These polls are more like "What are the features of the ideal map?".
By the way, Lost Temple and Metalopolis are reflection symmetry. I believe they used this symmetry to avoid lawsuits over maps looking like swasticas (happened in BW). Their new map Backwater Gulch uses rotational symmetry, but is asymmetrical in the middle two golds; curious?
|
Would be interesting to see if you could make a 5 player 1v1 map, where players cannot spawn uber close (eliminating close by left and right positions).
|
|
|
Calgary25979 Posts
On March 08 2011 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 02:12 Chill wrote:I'm kind of loling at the results. "I want no harassment opportunities and a lot of easy to defend bases. I want the middle open." Some things never change macromacromacromacromacro. It's probably just because there are so many SC2 maps that have such fast games already. A lot of people want something different I'm not surprised at the polls either lol Call the map "Team Liquid Request"
I understand, but it's just funny that's nothing changed since Brood War. People want to take their easy bases, then make a huge army, and then smash it into another huge army. Where's the finesse? I still love Lost Temple's cliffs 
|
On March 08 2011 03:18 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2011 02:12 Chill wrote:I'm kind of loling at the results. "I want no harassment opportunities and a lot of easy to defend bases. I want the middle open." Some things never change macromacromacromacromacro. It's probably just because there are so many SC2 maps that have such fast games already. A lot of people want something different I'm not surprised at the polls either lol Call the map "Team Liquid Request" I understand, but it's just funny that's nothing changed since Brood War. People want to take their easy bases, then make a huge army, and then smash it into another huge army. Where's the finesse? I still love Lost Temple's cliffs
Same here. Judging by the number of anti-cheese threads we've seen, I'd make an educated guess and say that most people don't like to worry about any sort of hidden plays, trickery, all-in builds, or anything other than "standard macro" strategies when they actually play the game. Of course, it's amazing to watch when Boxer or other pros would do interesting things in SC1...
|
On March 07 2011 18:49 Crazycraft wrote:
Whatever it turns out to be, I suggest resisting the urge to call it Griffith's Perfect Map™
ROFL this made my day !
Ontopic, it seems the perfect map is like the opposite of Blizzard typical map, which does not surprize me very much.
Seriously, something like terminus RE is REALLY good to me. But turning the gold into normal expos and removing rocks will benefit the map.
|
the biggest problem with cheese is that cheese is imbalanced :D
all zerg can do is build an early pool while protoss and especially terran will benefit alot more from exploitable map features like highgrounds at the natural, places to hide proxy pylons and buildings, etc. but in theory those are nice things to have because they make a boring map more interesting
|
|
|
On March 07 2011 14:42 iGrok wrote:
3 player
Seconded 3P maps change movement enough to be really dynamic every time I watch/play on it!
|
They key here I think is no rocks 
|
Please put the TL horse logo to the center!
|
I also agree that 3 player maps should be an option --- I would pick it.
|
I believe TL is predominantly composed of Zerg players, right? I remember seeing that somewhere. I guess this sort of complements it XD
|
On March 08 2011 13:20 Zeke50100 wrote:
I believe TL is predominantly composed of Zerg players, right? I remember seeing that somewhere. I guess this sort of complements it XD
I'm laughing at how horribly these polls show zerg support
|
On March 08 2011 04:25 ondik wrote:
Please put the TL horse logo to the center!
YES PLEASE
|
To be honest, I don't think there will ever be a perfect map. No map can suit every style, and while it may be balanced, that does not mean perfect.
That is why we have a map pool. To have diversity in maps so we can try and play different strategies, styles, etc.
But you CAN make a map that is balanced, fun to play for all races, etc.
I think that this map you make will be epic. Good luck.
|
Hey guise I took it onto myself to make a rough sketch of this map in paint that the poll has overall-ly suggested. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the exact design Griffith will use.
I code colored purple/magenta/etc as empty space so no reapers collosus etc, the X with the square is the xel naga and everything else is self explanatory. I took the liberty of adding an 8th base to fit in the golds, considering most ppl would have voted for 8 if that were an option, so keep in mind that bases are a lot harder to squeeze in then they look lolololo.
So without further adu(n) I present you the one, the only
+ Show Spoiler [TLParadise] +![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/yGqCb.jpg) Feel free to comment. I think maybe the 3rd is a little wide open personally :o
I also made a version of the map that is better suited to Blizz's creative style of mapmaking:
+ Show Spoiler [BlizzParadise] +![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PXTFc.jpg) Brown Turds = Destructable rocks
Keep up the voting guise!
|
heh my map won't quite look like that
but it'll be ... pretty awesome
|
On March 08 2011 15:06 Geovu wrote:Hey guise I took it onto myself to make a rough sketch of this map in paint that the poll has overall-ly suggested. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the exact design Griffith will use. I code colored purple/magenta/etc as empty space so no reapers collosus etc, the X with the square is the xel naga and everything else is self explanatory. I took the liberty of adding an 8th base to fit in the golds, considering most ppl would have voted for 8 if that were an option, so keep in mind that bases are a lot harder to squeeze in then they look lolololo. So without further adu(n) I present you the one, the only + Show Spoiler [TLParadise] +Feel free to comment. I think maybe the 3rd is a little wide open personally :o I also made a version of the map that is better suited to Blizz's creative style of mapmaking: + Show Spoiler [BlizzParadise] +Brown Turds = Destructable rocks Keep up the voting guise!
Is it possible to create a custom tileset? I would really like to see one based on these sketches. :-D
EDIT: Okay, maybe I'm being a bit pedantic by actually analysing a map doodled in Paint, but I have to point out that you've got some serious positional imbalance going on here with the ramps .
|
Well I worked on this for about 20 hours straight today:
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Photos/Liquid.png?w=a49bbeb1 for a preview!
Features:
3 Bases that can be very easily obtained by Zerg
Low mineral count lines between double bridge behind 3rd (Terran can choose to sacrifice a mule to open up a path when attack offensively)
Semi-open center area, allowing for easy flanks. Bridges offer some chokability for T/P.
Main and Natural semi-open to air-harass
TL LOGO IN THE MIDDLE :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
|
On March 08 2011 17:34 Griffith` wrote:Well I worked on this for about 20 hours straight today: https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Photos/Liquid.png?w=a49bbeb1 for a preview! Features: 3 Bases that can be very easily obtained by Zerg Low mineral count lines between double bridge behind 3rd (Terran can choose to sacrifice a mule to open up a path when attack offensively) Semi-open center area, allowing for easy flanks. Bridges offer some chokability for T/P. Main and Natural semi-open to air-harass TL LOGO IN THE MIDDLE :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I can't see that, try another image upload site such as imagr or tinypic. You can just use the TL upload aswell.
Oh, and you have to be careful with doodad bridges, they don't spread creep over it.
|
On March 08 2011 17:08 AmericanUmlaut wrote:"... Is it possible to create a custom tileset? I would really like to see one based on these sketches. :-D ..." .
Yes, it is possible to mix and match, properly or like an elephant in a percussion shop...
It's a bit buggy in some areas, but on the whole: you want it, someone can help you do it...
============
On March 08 2011 17:52 EffectS wrote:
"I can't see that, try another image upload site such as imagr or tinypic. You can just use the TL upload aswell."
...
yes yes yes... registering to a new site every day sounds like the army... to me
i'll host anyone's' pictures for free if pm'ed for it.
|
broken link is broken
the easiest image hosting site out there is probably dropmocks.com, altho it will shrink down images most likely. but hosting pics with drag&drop into the brwoser window is so handy
|
|
|
On March 09 2011 03:55 Griffith` wrote:http://i.imgur.com/5KgmP.jpg=D I need to do something about the chokes - but I'm trying to balance it so Zerg doesn't auto win on 3 bases =\
Hmm.. interesting concept. I think it needs a lot of work proprtions. I know this guide isn't the best, but I think it will help: Proportions Guide.
|
i think definitely need to shrink the map size down, too
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On March 09 2011 03:55 Griffith` wrote:http://i.imgur.com/5KgmP.jpg=D I need to do something about the chokes - but I'm trying to balance it so Zerg doesn't auto win on 3 bases =\
Is this the attempt to create the perfect map? Oo
|
On March 09 2011 04:08 dezi wrote:Is this the attempt to create the perfect map? Oo
I feel the same way.
|
its a very very rough draft
|
I always liked 2 and 3 player maps more than 4 player maps. The map just loses its character when you have to balance 4 sides instead of 2 or 3. I mean look at sin chupung ryeong and medusa opposed to python or colosseum
|
lol 4 pages and then then 4 posts of negative feedback this died completely
|
give it time/work/good will
|
Why isn't there the 3 players option ? Testbug is an example of a good 3player map.
I don't like 2 players because too easy to proxy without even scouting, or other all-inish things without scout needed.
I don't really like most 4 players map because it takes a very long time to scout (especially on macro maps).
For instance, I like to fast-expand once I saw there was no 6pool/cheese. On some 4players maps, it's just impossible depending on luck/scout order.
Edit : Just saw the preview, the narrow bridges bothers me as a Zerg player.
Edit2 : There is no such thing as a perfect map. Variety of maps is what is needed.
|
I think you meant to name this the "Most Boring" TeamLiquid Map. As much as everyone might think the perfect map is the simplest most balanced map, you'll probably find that a 'perfect' map is actually just a bad, impossible concept.
|
i think its weird how in general people want 'macro' games but vote as if they want 'turtle' games. i think macro games is more of a style of play, but having maps that so strongly encourage you to wait until 3 base before attacking is is not really the way to go.
|
I'm surprised at all the people choosing 4player map over 2player.
4 Player maps introduce a real "luck" factor as far as rolling close/far positions. I agree with the comments Jinro made about metalopolis being one of the worst maps since it's pretty much a win/lose roll of the dice. Any maps that try to eliminate close positions by spoking the direction of each base still has the inevitable problem of map imbalance, such that in every non-cross matchup one players third base will be significantly easier to take and defend, such as backwater gulch.
2 player map simply eliminates all of these problems.
|
On March 16 2011 00:35 RobiTL wrote:
Edit2 : There is no such thing as a perfect map. Variety of maps is what is needed.
Why is it impossible to have a map that is 50-50 in all match-ups?
|
On March 08 2011 15:06 Geovu wrote:+ Show Spoiler [TLParadise] +Feel free to comment. I think maybe the 3rd is a little wide open personally :o I also made a version of the map that is better suited to Blizz's creative style of mapmaking: + Show Spoiler [BlizzParadise] +Brown Turds = Destructable rocks Keep up the voting guise!
OMG GENIUS, I suggest we call the first one Xel'Naga Caverns, and the second one something shitty and stupid.....like.....STEPPES OF WAR!!!
Lol but no seriously, your first one's concept does look very good (like an improved XNC).
I'm not too keen on Griffith's map though...Looks like Siege tanks will be LOL NO GROUND, and air play will be extremely dominant. I think if the bridges were made much wider the map would be pretty decent. Oh, and, third is also extremely easy to defend with siege tanks from high ground.
|
first one could be called "grats terran on 2 free gold bases at the most strategical point of the map"
|
On March 07 2011 17:36 Mogget wrote:Looking at the results so far, zerg win% on this map? %100 lol huge map with easily defensible natural and quick third, and only semi open air, this would be better if it was vulnerable from air so the other races could put -some- sort of early pressure on a zerg, (remember that protoss/terran actually need to be able to make a zerg panic so they dont just get out macro'd and die) I agree with the earlier sentiment that there should be 4 more of these poll's, this one as mixed and an additional poll for each race (counting random as a race) Im also not sure why everyone is hating on the smoke (long grass) sure, we hate cheese, but its not like its hard to throw up a pylon/depo/ovie spotter in there early game, it just adds another dimension to the early game, punishes lasy people, and lures cheesy people to perform extreemly predictable and scoutable proxies. I also agree totally with Sadist's point. Other than that, at the very least this will be a nice chance in venue to play on such a large macro map, so thanks a lot for making the effort to start this thread and develop a map for us all the best of luck! I hope its a sucess
I voted as a protoss player. Longer distances between bases benefit zerg more as their units have excellent mobility and maphacks everywhere. Closed bases make it easier to defend for P/T, but slightly harder for Z. It depends, against a 4 gate you want them to run into your crawlers, but on a map like XNC you can attack at any angle and never have to fight the crawlers while at the same time they can attack your army at any angle. The grass issue I don't really care for so I just voted yes. But I can see if people hate it since you can cheese a little easier.
|
On March 08 2011 00:38 Griffith` wrote:
I've avoided adding the 3 player option mainly because symmetry is difficult to preserve when the axes of symmetry are non perpendicular to each other. I've also tried to deal with the issue of # of xel'naga towers using a coverage poll, because if i do it simply based on # of towers, they could be placed in awkward positions.
# of towers is irrelevant. It's what's done with them that matters.
|
On March 09 2011 04:11 EffectS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 04:08 dezi wrote:On March 09 2011 03:55 Griffith` wrote:http://i.imgur.com/5KgmP.jpg=D I need to do something about the chokes - but I'm trying to balance it so Zerg doesn't auto win on 3 bases =\ Is this the attempt to create the perfect map? Oo I feel the same way.
It looks like everywhere on the map is a choke, would suck for zerg but maybe it looks that way from the picture.
|
Hahah, I love these polls. Perfect map? Four players, seven bases per player. LET'S DO THIS
|
i like the map but maybe the gold is a little easy to take? i'm thinking also that those two bridges make defending a little too easy, maybe make them a little wider or something. that said i know nothing about map making so i could well be talking nonsense... anyway gj
|
Looks like a giant macrofest map is in order.
|
On March 16 2011 05:52 Eiii wrote:
Hahah, I love these polls. Perfect map? Four players, seven bases per player. LET'S DO THIS
7 bases for each player in a 1v1, not 1v1v1v1.
|
On March 16 2011 02:39 Kazzabiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 00:35 RobiTL wrote:
Edit2 : There is no such thing as a perfect map. Variety of maps is what is needed. Why is it impossible to have a map that is 50-50 in all match-ups?
Oh, by perfect, I didn't assume a 50-50 in all-matchup.
For instance, IF a square map with no cliff, no ramp, nothing would be 50-50, it wouldn't be perfect to me because it would be just boring.
|
i do like the concept of this map, but the previous posts are right about siege tanks right now. terran could go tank viking off of 3 base and laugh in the face of the zerg who attempts to break his contain.... widen the attack paths, or even better try this:
start with a wide open path, and subtract space, keeping as many routes into each base as possible. don't be afraid to let players attack from more than 2 angles. its a problem i have every time i make a map.
|
Is it just me or does the map kind of look like Arcadia II from BW? There are 2 nats and then bases near you, except Arcadia had islands @ the 3 and 9 o clock positions.
Spoilered cuz It's kind of big.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I like the idea a lot!! :D I hope that the poll results go for a macro map!!
Also like Crazycraft said you should name the map Griffith's Perfect Map™
Good luck dood!!
|
only thing smoke screens are good for are cannon rushes or proxy warp ins, both of which suck.
|
i would actually rather have a 3-player map
|
First Impressions of the map:
The bridges provide a very small choke which will allow a player to hold their 3 bases very easily.
Play would probably favour building up a doom army in base, or attempting to drop/nydus into the large main.
Doesn't seem to be enough motivation to move in the middle as expansions are very hard to defend and you already have three bases.
Perhaps add more bases/ better terrain in the centre to encourage players to turtle less and make it more dynamic (personal preference) or remove one of the bridges and just connect expansion to centre to weaken the taking of the third which would hopefully make it more exciting while still following the poll results.
Good shout Griffith!
|
imho there should be more 4 player maps, with close pos ruled out, basically making it a 3player map as you only scout 2 bases.
|
i like the look already but the third in the preview looks a bit TOO easy to take, especialy with the small bridge chokes and cliffs would allow terrans to tank the third easily and protoss to ff the choke forever. muta, banshee and drop harras also seems really strong since you can attack the third then head to the main to attack production buildings in the blink of an eye while the ground army would have to run all the way around. Maybe reduce the main size? there is also alot of room for 4 gates and korean 4 gates in the main too.
imo you shouldn't focus on fancy features and should focus on making the map simple, like luna. luna was a very plain map perhaps even the most dull map ever to be included in pro bw yet it made many epic games because of the simplicty
|
I think it looks really good, not going to give my SMALL critiques cause I can obviously tell its just a mini draft. =D keep up the good work
|
Woah.... What... What's up with TL polls all the sudden?
OT: This is a really good idea! Thanks for taking the time to set this all up!
|
You should also have a poll for tileset =P
|
Updated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Check OP =D
|
IMHO you should make the minerals 35 instead of 30 so it takes more than just one MULE drop.
|
Wow nice, it looks good, however one thing worries me; each corner of the map has 4 close expansions, while the middle of the map (bridges etc.) is quite empty; games might end in 3 base or 3 base turtlers. Also I thin the 3rd should have less resources; 6 min 1 gas may be? Or min or gas heavy. Otherwise 3 bases would seem to be very easy to defend.
Also, to improve the "restricted" expansion path outside of each players' corner, I think you could experiment with the orientation of the gold expansions (the mineral line orientation pretty much). For example, the bottom left corner, if you flip the gold expansion to its right to the left, so that the bottom left player will have to walk past the minerals to build an expo, I think that would help. This way the bottom right player or other can still harass, but will reach the base first before the workers. This would also help expansion paths outside of each corner.
|
Question: How did you make the bridges walkable?
|
A protoss's wetdream! I can't wait to play it ^^
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Mineral Blocks don't work in SC2 (read MULE). There're also way to many chokepoints.
T can drop the cliff to siege your 3rd? T can also set up tanks on the cliff on the other side of the bridges leading to your nat and walk in and out with the rest of his forces > and you can't stop it. With minerals never being touched by a Turtle-T he can easily sit at his HY = 4 bases.
Long story short: This layout isn't good.
|
|
|
On March 16 2011 18:49 dezi wrote:
Mineral Blocks don't work in SC2 (read MULE). There're also way to many chokepoints.
T can drop the cliff to siege your 3rd? T can also set up tanks on the cliff on the other side of the bridges leading to your nat and walk in and out with the rest of his forces > and you can't stop it. With minerals never being touched by a Turtle-T he can easily sit at his HY = 4 bases.
Long story short: This layout isn't good.
I 100% agree.
I think the map looks great while having a lot of appeal to it, but those fundamental flaws set it back a lot.
|
On March 16 2011 17:37 NastyMarine wrote:
Question: How did you make the bridges walkable?
Bridges are walkable by default, the real trick is playing with its footprint to 1. disable building on top of bridges and 2. make creep spreadable. 3. import custom icons so they show up on the minimap for each orientation of the bridge
On March 16 2011 18:49 dezi wrote:
Mineral Blocks don't work in SC2 (read MULE). There're also way to many chokepoints.
T can drop the cliff to siege your 3rd? T can also set up tanks on the cliff on the other side of the bridges leading to your nat and walk in and out with the rest of his forces > and you can't stop it. With minerals never being touched by a Turtle-T he can easily sit at his HY = 4 bases.
Long story short: This layout isn't good.
There is one "choke point" at your natural (the double bridge) that is only slightly smaller than the choke of terminus Re.
MULE drops aren't free, its at a penalty to Terran (you burn about 130 minerals), its just slightly faster than sending 6 drones/probes to mine it. Though I might change it to either 15 or 35.
The cliff between nat/3rd can't be used to directly siege the 3rd, it doesn't reach the mineral lines or the hatchery. I was actually thinking of removing it not becuase it's imba cliff drops but rather because it didn't really do anything.
The HY might be changed slightly, but so far, they are quite difficult to hold. The mineral lines are vulnerable to storms, siege tanks, infestor fungals, muta harass, etc. It's fair game for all 3 races
Most of these elements are only somewhat applicable mid-late game, which is difficult enough for T as is.
On March 16 2011 15:57 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Wow nice, it looks good, however one thing worries me; each corner of the map has 4 close expansions, while the middle of the map (bridges etc.) is quite empty; games might end in 3 base or 3 base turtlers. Also I thin the 3rd should have less resources; 6 min 1 gas may be? Or min or gas heavy. Otherwise 3 bases would seem to be very easy to defend.
Also, to improve the "restricted" expansion path outside of each players' corner, I think you could experiment with the orientation of the gold expansions (the mineral line orientation pretty much). For example, the bottom left corner, if you flip the gold expansion to its right to the left, so that the bottom left player will have to walk past the minerals to build an expo, I think that would help. This way the bottom right player or other can still harass, but will reach the base first before the workers. This would also help expansion paths outside of each corner.
I think expansion-wise what I had in mind for expansions was: After the player has taken 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and gold, he can either, go from his 3rd to the OTHER gold, or go from his gold to the OTHER 3rd
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS & FEEDBACK
|
The newest update is looking MUCH better. My biggest issue is still that there is way too much room in the main. I think you should make the main and the 3rd separated by an open air space. I'm typing this on my iPod now, but I'll update with MS Paint later.
Edit: I've attached the map that I edited on MS Paint. I did this from school, so excuse the hastiness.
+ Show Spoiler + Solid red outlines + blue fill = definite change. Dotted red outline = possible change. ![[image loading]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj238/garlicface/TL/TLMap.jpg)
|
it still feels ab bit too large and has alot of empty space inbetween that serves no real purpose, imho
|
well im going to retract my previous statement, the fact that siege tanks cant reach hatch or minerals from that cliff is pretty huge. they can still be used to contain but a 3 base contain isnt that scary. Plus they offer great defensive options with siege tanks, cliff walking, and cliff side infestors.
my only problem with it now is that it looks to easy for terran to grab and hold 3 fast bases, then good possibilities for siege tanks + PF's at the gold. the same downfall of jungle basin.
what about taking the "bridge side gold ramp" and making it span the entire leangth of that wall?
seems like that would make it much harder to turtle up on
|
seems to small ways with thig big free space in the middle it makes it very easy to make timings as terran or protoss
|
On March 16 2011 23:23 hun13 wrote:
well im going to retract my previous statement, the fact that siege tanks cant reach hatch or minerals from that cliff is pretty huge. they can still be used to contain but a 3 base contain isnt that scary. Plus they offer great defensive options with siege tanks, cliff walking, and cliff side infestors.
my only problem with it now is that it looks to easy for terran to grab and hold 3 fast bases, then good possibilities for siege tanks + PF's at the gold. the same downfall of jungle basin.
what about taking the "bridge side gold ramp" and making it span the entire leangth of that wall?
seems like that would make it much harder to turtle up on
ACtually I double checked, a single siege tank can hit the 3rd's hatchery, but only with spotter vision. I may or may not remove this. Siegeing a 3rd doesn't seem nearly as bad as sieging a natural on LT. A single siege tank will take about 90 seconds to actually kill a 1500 hp hatchery
|
On March 16 2011 23:54 Griffith` wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 23:23 hun13 wrote:
well im going to retract my previous statement, the fact that siege tanks cant reach hatch or minerals from that cliff is pretty huge. they can still be used to contain but a 3 base contain isnt that scary. Plus they offer great defensive options with siege tanks, cliff walking, and cliff side infestors.
my only problem with it now is that it looks to easy for terran to grab and hold 3 fast bases, then good possibilities for siege tanks + PF's at the gold. the same downfall of jungle basin.
what about taking the "bridge side gold ramp" and making it span the entire leangth of that wall?
seems like that would make it much harder to turtle up on ACtually I double checked, a single siege tank can hit the 3rd's hatchery, but only with spotter vision. I may or may not remove this. Siegeing a 3rd doesn't seem nearly as bad as sieging a natural on LT. A single siege tank will take about 90 seconds to actually kill a 1500 hp hatchery
yeah but couldnt the timing of the tank actualy prevent a thirds hatchery from every getting put down effectively creating an easy 2 base contain? Sounds like something to test at the very least.
|
What do you guys think about removing the backdoor minerals to be simply completely open? Temporarily removing them to see how games go.
|
On March 17 2011 06:06 Griffith` wrote:
What do you guys think about removing the backdoor minerals to be simply completely open? Temporarily removing them to see how games go.
With MULEs in the game, mineral blocks like this are a gimmick that only terran will really use.
That said, the proportions of this map are unplayably far off. I would highly suggest redoing the map with some far more severe constraints and using the space on the map intelligently. I had set out to do exactly what you are doing back in the beta (literally, exactly what you are doing) and I abandoned the project simply because I did not agree with designing a map based off polls. You've got a pretty daunting task ahead of you and I sincerely hope you rethink this map as I'm sure the community would love to see something like this work out quite well.
|
also, i assume the bridges block any creepspread? if yes, thats quite annoying for zerg and should probably be a normal terrain choke instead.
|
On March 17 2011 06:46 lefix wrote:
also, i assume the bridges block any creepspread? if yes, thats quite annoying for zerg and should probably be a normal terrain choke instead.
The double-width bridge does not prevent creep spread, but the triple and single-width do prevent creep spread.
|
I don't like that the center is not playable, and that from the 3rd you can siege some tanks and you're main base gets f'd.
I like the map so far, but it could be twitched.
Good luck!!! :D
|
It's.... so beautiful
Really good job ^^ but is it possible for a creep tumor as close to one end of the bridge to duplicate to the other end of the bridge, provided that an overlord is creeping up the other end?
|
Best part I love about this map is the middle!
Looks so sleek when viewed in game :D
|
I feel like this map will promote airplay to a great extent because of all the ground pathing. Not too sure if this a good or bad thing :/
Also I feel like a turtling terran has a huge advantage in this map due to the narrow chokes at the bridges. They can siege contain each bridge with just a few tanks and proceed to expand to their side of the map easily.
Of course, I haven't actually played this map yet so I can't be one hundred percent sure.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On March 17 2011 08:12 oGm`REM wrote:
Best part I love about this map is the middle!
Looks so sleek when viewed in game :D
Let's take another bad map and put in the TL sign - BAMM - so awesome ...
|
Griffith', show some love for us zergs man, you're killing me with those chokes. that double bridge + mineral block basically means that zerg can't attack the natural of P/T ever (read: siege tanks and forcefield)
also, free third base much?
in short: this map makes zergs cry.
|
I must've missed the 3 polls that said please add 50 bridges a HY base that's impossible to defend and a wide ramp into the main oO
I like the main/nat/third setup. Not sure about the main size though.
|
Those choke points......
The only way into THREE EXPANSIONS is a 3 tile wide path? You have got to be kidding.
Why all the bridges? I just don't even......
"The Impenetrable 3 Base Fortress of Zerg Tears" would be a good name for this map.
|
no gimmicks like mineral blocks and bridges please, leave them to your own map, as this is a teamliquid community map just make it what we want,as that was ur goal!
|
map seems big and bland. The golds aren't in any locations of contention, that's a good part about xelnaga, they are in the middle and generally are in the attack path from main to main making the gold bases battle grounds. These gold bases just look like easy 4ths, especially cross positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mIHWL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/8_Arcadia%202.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cacaouete.net/tl/018liquid.jpg)
