|
I just wanted to make a new thread for those who want conceptual feedback from the community.
Post pictures or ask questions about maps you were thinking of creating here
for example:
+ Show Spoiler +
Example questions:
+ Show Spoiler +Does this map seem favorable to any one race as opposed to another? why?
which concepts for a 4 player map on this picture are your favorite?
Is the idea for a forward island base a bad idea to you TLers?
try to keep it clean and friendly, dont downright disown peoples ideas please, just suggest how they can improve their ideas.
This is to prevent any aspiring maps from being fully aesthetically done with no prior community intake, which often times gets some map makers a little sour ^.^
Hopefully some people can get some use out of this thread
glhf
|
- Probably Protoss since the map would be like 200x180
- I like the low ground idea from top/bottom to middle
- Sucks like all islands. Actually even a little more imo.
|
Well I have been trying to make a non-mirrored, non-rotational map for a loooong time, and I wanted it to be both balanced and imbalanced, by that I mean :
- balanced= timings, enough space for micro but not too much or too little (overall) to favour anyone. Equal opertunity to take third expos (though vulnerability may change) and lots of alternative routes (for player choice), try to keep things as standard as possible but still push my concept.
-Imbalanced= Lots of room to exploit races pro/cons as much as possible. Narrow Areas for bottle-necking, Wide areas for easy surrounds, lots of alternative routes (making positioning critical). The ability to snipe over trees or drop vulnerable areas (which means that not all mineral lines are safe) a fair amount for places hiding pylons/other buildings etc.
Ultimately I wanted the imbalances to counter each other and the balances to be global, that way overall it should be "balanced" in an "imbalanced" way.
Scouting on this map I think may be more critical than usual, as will positioning and "dirty tactics". Choice of expanding will also be critical ( I am thinking of, changing expo mineral patches dependent on how vulnerable they are, and to discourage turtling) based on vulnerability and routes.
Goals for players:
+ Show Spoiler +Well most are somewhat mentioned above anyway, but the overview is that terrain becomes more situational from the time you spawn. And how they adjust to it in their own area, and their opponents area, or if they decide to try and move the core fighting to another area that they can deal with better. I can make some guesses on what they will do but the hope is that it will be a little more unpredictable, and players might look at areas that they like more than dislike and try to force events to happen there if they can.
My Goals for making it:
+ Show Spoiler +To create a map with more situational awareness about the terrain and your place in it. This happens already, but one can get used to it and develop a game plan to try and compensate. This is something I want to be much harder to do. But without forcing turtling or games to go on too much longer.
Im not against it, I just think the occasional map should sometimes skew focus away from that.
The hope is to inspire creativity and exciting games that are slightly different, and for focus on the usual things that make great matches to watch and play but without the comfort Xplan for Xmap and instea blur that line a little.
Finally, as usual hoping to make something that people will compete on
This is the basic layout atm (so no textures yet), but I wanted to get some feed back on the idea as a whole, and the layout below before i did anything more to it.
Some map stats
+ Show Spoiler +Its a 4 player map but desigend really with 2 players in mind.
The trees are both LOS/Pathing Blockers and I havent decided where to put XWT's yet.
Ramp to ramp times 7-1 oclock is 48secs ( 2secs shorter than Lost Temple) All other times are 42secs (give or take 1 second) which is the same as XNC.
Air distances are different, depending where you spawn.
Spawns are almost exatly the same size area, though different shapes (that in its self offers some nice imbalances)
Map View
+ Show Spoiler +
Game View
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer
Summary
+ Show Spoiler +
Shortest Paths Nats
+ Show Spoiler +
Shortest Paths Spawns
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Please lock the spawning positions so Zerg always get's the base with the cliff behind the natural.
In general all those expos where units can attack from behind the trees are terrible.
I think the concept of it is very interesting but obviously it's reeeeally hard to turn it into a balanced map.
|
On April 12 2011 03:28 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
Please lock the spawning positions so Zerg always get's the base with the cliff behind the natural.
In general all those expos where units can attack from behind the trees are terrible.
I think the concept of it is very interesting but obviously it's reeeeally hard to turn it into a balanced map.
Other than the top right nat (which I have to fix so they cant be sieged so easily) the expos that are vulnerable are meant to be. Every race has units that can abuse that vulnerability and fight against it (mainly through good scouting), also to fire at the back of those expos a scan/air unit is needed for vision. Its the equivalent to firing up a cliff.
Additionally at all those expos, units dont have to go far at all when sending units round to deal with the threat. So a very fast response time is possible.
The heavier units with longer range ST Col or BL move slowly, and will be either very vulnerable to counterattack or insterseption or being boxed in, in every position they take up to attack an expo from the back. (unless they have control of the area in which case they are doing a good job, though somewhere else for them will be vulnerable)
Remember it is not meant to be balanced, at least not in the normal way. So expanding there simply because its easy to or because it may be on your optimal route would not be the only main reasons, you would have to be fairly confident you can control the area well enough for it to be a good investment (I know this is already a consideration but more so in this case).
on a slightly seperate note, I love resource wars, in the past I've tried to force them by limiting resources, which was bad, 1) because less minerals means less choices and harder choices for players (both of those things together are just not good). 2) It tends to dictate a route a player should take. 3)Its bad to force a player.
This way all the minerals are available for a player to do what they want, only the hard choices remain.
|
Hard to make isnt it  Your first instincts tell you to mirror it exactly when u go into balance. Im doing a 'normal' map for next MotM, after that Im gonna try this aswell. Gonna watch ur progress
|
On April 12 2011 16:12 ihasaKAROT wrote:Hard to make isnt it Your first instincts tell you to mirror it exactly when u go into balance. Im doing a 'normal' map for next MotM, after that Im gonna try this aswell. Gonna watch ur progress
omg its hard, I've made 10 other maps the entier time I've been trying to do a layout for this one.
I currently trying to focus on the idea of using map imbalances to cancel each other out, its like saying, if everyone is able to abuse all the same factors then it is fair.
But even if I some how manage to do that, I have a strong feeling that the first impression of a player who looks at it would be how they could be attacked in X way and note like it before they consider how they could also do it too.
And even if they don't, whether the whole thing is even a good idea is still up in the air.
|
If you want ideas for imbalances that cancel each other out, look for BW replays on Seven Sins.
Ths SC2 version is good but just doesn't compare
|
This is only a 1st draft layout.
But would something like this need to have forced opposite spawns?
any other comments about the layout are welcome
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xvB7j.jpg)
On April 13 2011 02:57 iGrok wrote:
If you want ideas for imbalances that cancel each other out, look for BW replays on Seven Sins.
Ths SC2 version is good but just doesn't compare
Thanks I will check those out.
|
hmm, i think the 10/4 positions 3rd/4th is too close. i would just get rid of that inbetween expo.
on another note. how do you force cross position anyway. i have tried before and failed :D
|
Originally it was going to be a 2p map. But the size started getting too large. However, is there anything wrong with a large 2p map? is'nt that what a 4p map is when its being used for 1v1?
Even though there have been some great 4p maps, and where someone spawns is an extra dynamic in its self. Would it not be a good thing to make large 2player maps?
@lefix
Yeah those expos are a point of contention for me at the moment aswell
Im pretty sure its: MAP -> Team placement (basic) or Team placement (advanced).
|
i made a blue storm port...i wanna make it sc2 playable so i changed some minor stuff.
pls tell me what could be changed to make it better
+ Show Spoiler +
|
@Mereel
I love this map in BW it was easily one of my favorites so I'm glad you've decided to remake it. However I think it should be changed quite a bit from the original while still keeping its nostalgic effects.
Ill just make some suggestions of how I would change it, you don't have to do this ofcourse 
1. I'd increase the overall size and widen the expansions outside of the natural
2. Make the low ground choke of the natural 3x3 block-able (use of DR might be a kool Idea there)
3. Widen the top and bottom center-most expos
4. I really wouldn't have a xel Naga tower there, maybe close to the High yield on the high ground or in the gap between the center ramp breaks.
5. Perhaps widen the choke from Main to Nat and close it back up with DR?
6. Reposition the third maybe? the near high ground and behind area are way too colossi/siege-able
Again these are just things I would do lol
I think a must is working out siege range and working out cliff pathing
good luck dude I hope to see your progress!
|
On April 18 2011 05:22 Broodie wrote:@Mereel I love this map in BW it was easily one of my favorites so I'm glad you've decided to remake it. However I think it should be changed quite a bit from the original while still keeping its nostalgic effects. Ill just make some suggestions of how I would change it, you don't have to do this ofcourse 1. I'd increase the overall size and widen the expansions outside of the natural 2. Make the low ground choke of the natural 3x3 block-able (use of DR might be a kool Idea there) 3. Widen the top and bottom center-most expos 4. I really wouldn't have a xel Naga tower there, maybe close to the High yield on the high ground or in the gap between the center ramp breaks. 5. Perhaps widen the choke from Main to Nat and close it back up with DR? 6. Reposition the third maybe? the near high ground and behind area are way too colossi/siege-able Again these are just things I would do lol I think a must is working out siege range and working out cliff pathing good luck dude I hope to see your progress!
I agree, The map seems too small. Looks awesome though
|
just wondering how these maps are coming along and to say that i played a port of bluestorm earlier and it was wayy too big, check it out and maybe thatll help you size your port
|
I've been working on this map but the layout still feels off to me. In particular the position of the thirds. Any comments would be welcome. Also near position distances are 150-155 and cross distances are around 175.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 24 2011 12:44 SmashHammer wrote:I've been working on this map but the layout still feels off to me. In particular the position of the thirds. Any comments would be welcome. Also near position distances are 150-155 and cross distances are around 175. + Show Spoiler +
Two things are apparent from looking at that analyser pic.
- There's a lot of dead space on this map (dead space=space between pathable areas)
- This map doesn't have enough open space. In it's current form, this map would give Zergs nightmares.
I suggest working on compacting the map while also opening up the center a little to give players room to manuever.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On April 12 2011 02:20 Archivian wrote:
Well I have been trying to make a non-mirrored, non-rotational map for a loooong time, and I wanted it to be both balanced and imbalanced
Same here, except mine is a seven player FFA map. I can post this map when I access a computer, I'm on my iPhone.
|
Hey fellas.
I´ve been trying to put this 4 player rota-sym layout together for what seems like ages now and I find it hard to make a great layout without taking too much from Terminus, Tal´Darim and Crevasse...
I´ve drawn so many sketches and I´ve almost completed several iterations with doodads and texturtes and everything but the layout always seem to end up bugging me somehow. I´d like you to take a look at my latest version and tell me what you think.
Layout concept sketch:+ Show Spoiler +Map size is about 140x140 - it´s probably gonna get bigger ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sABBq.jpg)
Yeah, I know the natural is wide open, but I love that about Xel´Nage Caverns and Metalopolis.
|
On April 29 2011 06:34 Johanaz wrote:Hey fellas. I´ve been trying to put this 4 player rota-sym layout together for what seems like ages now and I find it hard to make a great layout without taking too much from Terminus, Tal´Darim and Crevasse... I´ve drawn so many sketches and I´ve almost completed several iterations with doodads and texturtes and everything but the layout always seem to end up bugging me somehow. I´d like you to take a look at my latest version and tell me what you think. Layout concept sketch: + Show Spoiler +Map size is about 140x140 - it´s probably gonna get bigger Yeah, I know the natural is wide open, but I love that about Xel´Nage Caverns and Metalopolis.
I cant tell exactly, but it seems like the chokes might be too small?
That being said, the ground around it is pretty open.
|
On April 18 2011 00:56 Mereel wrote:i made a blue storm port...i wanna make it sc2 playable so i changed some minor stuff. pls tell me what could be changed to make it better + Show Spoiler +
whoa, the center path in bluestorm only worked because it was so tiny you could barely use it, widening it like that is going to be a disaster and turn the map into Steppesesque 2-base rushfest.
|
|
|
On April 29 2011 07:43 adso wrote:
star2 requires a small "upscaling" of terrain features to port star1 maps
i suppose that's the result.. got to test it :0)
Yeah, but thats the whole reason the map was Blue Storm! Otherwise there isn't a reason to around to the third or side pods.
|
its allready changed..as u can see in my mapthread
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i171/OodieM/MapConcepts.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/LtOFa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x5zY7l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0pTlel.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PAzIOl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yzyGOl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DyqsQl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OmX1Zl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i3M7Jl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kdGcql.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6ZOA5l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/stK0Ol.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IeRL7l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NjC55l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bB2f1l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4kxvil.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wOPEj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/SAu9w.jpg)
