|
The Mapping Challenge
Running event:
Mapping Challenge #1 Asymmetric Maps
Past events:
-
+ Show Spoiler [Background] +Samro wrote:
Rigt now many people make maps on a great level. there are so many talented guys around and also a bunch of new people stepping up their mapping and i kind of whish for having less competition and more fun trying some crazy stuff.
It is very hard to make a 4 player map that is interesting and balanced. for reflective symmetry as well as rotational symmetry there are a few standards that work well. probably we need more three player maps again or more shift symmetry stuff.
Barrin wrote:
The other 7 out of the 12 were rotational symmetry. Of these 7 rotational symmetry 4-player maps, 4 of them could be described like this: 16 bases. Main in corners connected to natural, third base (minerals) up against the main, and potential 4th bases between each of these with two entrances (one entrance connecting to a third, one entrance connecting to an area right outside the natural). A significantly open center with slight pathing restrictions, and either 4 watch towers (2 of these maps) or no watch towers (the other 2).
EatThePath wrote:
As to the idea of map challenges to get creativity flowing, I like it. However, against metaphor: that's like writing a catchy musical phrase. You still have to do a lot of work to put it in a song that turns out masterful, and you can't just evaluate it without context. Maps are exactly the same and you can only evaluate something by seeing the obvious and subtle interplay of the map elements and how they are used by players.
So, great for generating ideas but they still have to go into maps which are crafted over long hours in order to see "is this really something worthwhile I've hit upon?". That is why I want to see the innovations in the more breathable 2player maps to see how these paper planes fly, not just bend the wings differently on the same old style. Not that I don't like seeing a sweet fucking paper airplane regardless.
I think there is room for innovating with mirror symmetry, and there is a TON of space to do shifted symmetry style. iGrok wrote:
More 3 player maps please.
Challenge the current state of mapping and challenge the mapping community to build better maps
What is the Mapping Challenge?
Declare a challenge, define the rules and build a progressive, interesting and unique map that is different from the standards and dare the community to do the same.
+ Show Spoiler +Start the 100x100 Challenge or the Asymmetric Challenge, dare us to build a 5-playerstart or an island map or even show us in a speedmapping challenge if you think you are fast in cosnrtucting a map.
Anything is possible here.
The crazier your challenge the less people might attend it, but the more fruitfull it might actually be if it asks a lot of the most tallented people here.
This thread is meant to discuss our ideas and organize the challenges.
What are the rules for the Mapping Challenge?
1. Come up with an idea and post it in this thread, e.g. "100x100" & Define the framework (what is the challenge, what is the timeframe, are there any limitations?)
+ Show Spoiler [2.-7.] +2. Hope for positive reactions to your ideas. 3. I will edit your ideas into this post, so that we all can keep track of all Mapping Challenge ideas. If there is a certain number of people interested, we can open a specific thread [Mapping Challenge] + topic 4. You challenged us, now you have to judge us: Award "Special Prizes" to all maps including yours as well if you think it is that good! You will judge the maps together with a group of judges that changes with every challenge. optional: 5. Argue with the others if the prices were well deserved  6. Organize a meet&play or KotH with all maps
Why should we do this, what is The Mapping's Challenge aim?
+ Show Spoiler [1.-5.] +1. This is not about building the most played maps ever or constructing something that is better than a ladder map. 2. The Mapping Challenge is complementary to other mapping related organizations or tournaments like MotM and works outside the "team"-oriented thinking (los, iccup, tpw, etc.) 3. The Mapping Challenge wants to emphasize more experiemental approaches. 4. The Mapping Challenge wants to make the better and more experienced map makers share their ideas and show intersting but probably less polished stuff 5. Allow new, talented guys with less experience to join in the competition with one great idea and step up their mapping skills and try new stuff without having to fight threw MotM after MotM without ever seeing their map in the top5. and again: EatThePath wrote:
great for generating ideas but they still have to go into maps which are crafted over long hours in order to see "is this really something worthwhile I've hit upon?". (...)
I think there is room for innovating with mirror symmetry, and there is a TON of space to do shifted symmetry style.
Maybe one of us stumbles over something that later shows to be a great idea and can be developed into a good map.
|
please feel free to suggest challenges and discuss the format
possible topic
1. one cliff level with/without using cliffs
On August 13 2011 20:12 lefix wrote:
one cliff level
2. Maze
On August 13 2011 20:12 lefix wrote:
mazes (fun maps)
3. 3-player map
On August 14 2011 01:27 RevThirteen wrote:
Make a 3 Player map which functions and plays out as close as possible to how Shakuras works!
Thereby eleminating the problem of some spawns not being active. ^^
4. a map that if everything but mirrored
On August 14 2011 01:45 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
Well I think WniO did something last month that would be very interesting to see in such a challenge: Make a map that's everything else but mirrored but still as balanced as possible.
5. expanding away
On August 14 2011 03:51 iGrok wrote:
Challenge: Create a map in which you always expand away from your opponent, but has at least a 35 second rush distance main -> main, and isn't base-trade city!
6.Forcefields
On August 14 2011 04:34 TedJustice wrote:
Use pre-placed forcefields in an interesting way. Careful, cause they can bug pathing. Units pretend forcefields don't exist when they calculate pathing, so you've got to keep that in mind.
7. Creep
On August 14 2011 04:34 TedJustice wrote:
Use neutral creep tumors in some way. You can put them on a 1x1 high ground area to make it so they won't spread creep unless there's already creep near them.
8. Fixing a map / Searing Crater
On August 14 2011 04:39 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
New idea (thanks prodiG):
Turn Searing Crater into a good, balanced map.
Take that TL!
9. Islands
On August 14 2011 04:35 Gl!tch wrote:
Island maps :D
10. Low Mains
On August 14 2011 06:47 Phried wrote:
Mains on lowest ground only.
11. 7-player
On August 14 2011 14:04 Archvil3 wrote:
Challenge: Make a 7 player rotational symetri map!
12. 2 in 1 / Twisted Symmetry / Starparty
On August 14 2011 20:29 Ragoo wrote:
But there is one more possibility that is yet very unexplored: 4-2 maps (Superouman's name for it) or double cross/double 2player maps (suggestions for future naming from me^^).
This means maps with 4 spawns, but only cross spawns are mirrored and playable.
So yeah, I challenge everybody to make more maps like this cause I think there is sooo many possibilities and having two 1v1 maps in one map is just cool :D
13. 5-player map
On August 15 2011 03:11 iGrok wrote:
Also my challenge to anyone out there: Make a 5p map that can handle neighbor spawns.
14. small maps: 80x80 or 88x88
mentioned by lefix
|
just a few more ideas:
one cliff level
mazes (fun maps)
but i personally think it would be better to put together a small orga team that will pick the best suggestions and run these challenges instead of relying on people doing it themselves.
|
I like the idea of making some maps that defy the current model. Overall map structure is so monotonous these days, that's why I stopped making melee maps.
|
oh, and i like this idea alot 
|
On August 13 2011 20:12 lefix wrote:
but i personally think it would be better to put together a small orga team that will pick the best suggestions and run these challenges instead of relying on people doing it themselves.
This. I think any other way will just cause chaos.
Cool idea.
|
On August 13 2011 23:49 FlopTurnReaver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 20:12 lefix wrote:
but i personally think it would be better to put together a small orga team that will pick the best suggestions and run these challenges instead of relying on people doing it themselves. This. I think any other way will just cause chaos. Cool idea.
naturally i am interested in getting this running. This thread can be used to discuss topics as well as forms of organization... i mainly started this just to see who is interested - tbh i think every one here should be!
if everyone just throws any idea in it is chaos. personally I would suggest a topic/theme only if I thought, ok, I have a really nice idea and now i want to challenge others to think about a similar "problem" and we see who comes up with the best idea. I little bit like the motm 3player that actually posed quite a problem to be solved for many.
there is no judging, like a ranking of maps, but rather challenge others to think about an intersting map format one is interested in, too.
Therefore i would like to encourage everyone who can think of an intersting topic also to participate in the challenge - that is the nature of the challenge - and also in the judging.
yet i cannot do the organization like one would have to do for something like motm. i do not want a judge's board really. It is more about map makers sharing ideas and competition in small challenges. I rather see this as a community project by and for map makers.
open for suggestions on how to solve this.
|
kinda sporadic topic to be honest but i like the idea. isnt that what the whole sc2 custom area in TL is for anyways? lol.
EDIT: also, people should stop using custom tilesets. imo. its lazy.
|
On August 14 2011 00:17 WniO wrote:
EDIT: also, people should stop using custom tilesets. imo. its lazy.
is this a challenge? :D
On August 14 2011 00:17 WniO wrote:
kinda sporadic topic to be honest but i like the idea. isnt that what the whole sc2 custom area in TL is for anyways? lol.
yeah, kind of. but really, so few people show crazy stuff (including me), everybody wants to be professionel in a way, but one is also afraid to give away too much. often discussion about maps is moved away from the forums into the various teams, etc.
i hope the challenge format could bring together people to discuss mapping, try out stuff and also allow newbies to compete with more experienced map makers outside of motm that really wants one to make a polished, solid and balanced competitive play map - which is a good thing.
your last map would be a perfect startingpoint btw. among other reasons it motivated me to think about this thing.
|
woah thanks. ill be interested to see where this thread goes.
edit again: something like this would be great because after each motm finalists theres a drought of maps on the forum for a good week or two.
|
Make a 3 Player map which functions and plays out as close as possible to how Shakuras works!
Thereby eleminating the problem of some spawns not being active. ^^
|
On August 14 2011 01:27 RevThirteen wrote:
Make a 3 Player map which functions and plays out as close as possible to how Shakuras works!
Thereby eleminating the problem of some spawns not being active. ^^
I tried to sketch that in my head. My head hurts now -.-
|
Well I think WniO did something last month that would be very interesting to see in such a challenge: Make a map that's everything else but mirrored but still as balanced as possible.
I think the whole mapmaking community could benefit from such a project since some cool features could come out of it that could be used in tournament maps too.
|
Challenge: Create a map in which you always expand away from your opponent, but has at least a 35 second rush distance main -> main, and isn't base-trade city!
|
isn't that kind of the challenge you face each time you try to make a standard melee map?
|
Sounds like a DO style map challenge.
|
2 challenges.
1. Use pre-placed forcefields in an interesting way. Careful, cause they can bug pathing. Units pretend forcefields don't exist when they calculate pathing, so you've got to keep that in mind.
2. Use neutral creep tumors in some way. You can put them on a 1x1 high ground area to make it so they won't spread creep unless there's already creep near them.
|
|
|
New idea (thanks prodiG):
Turn Searing Crater into a good, balanced map.
Take that TL!
|
np, just gotta put in more rocks 
|
Ideas:
Reverse destructible rock, or collapsing bridge. Something that allows one to close routes rather than open them. Either set to a timer or destroy-able with units.
Teleporters! I remember a map that had multiple layers and did this using some similar triggers.
Though, these two are rather gimmicky and an entire competition with all having maps with teleporters would make teleporters dull after a while.
|
On August 14 2011 04:31 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
Sounds like a DO style map challenge.
I'm thinking a cross between DO and Scrap
|
On August 14 2011 04:45 Soluhwin wrote:
Ideas:
Reverse destructible rock, or collapsing bridge. Something that allows one to close routes rather than open them. Either set to a timer or destroy-able with units.
Teleporters! I remember a map that had multiple layers and did this using some similar triggers.
Though, these two are rather gimmicky and an entire competition with all having maps with teleporters would make teleporters dull after a while.
Wouldn't this be a modding challenge instead of a map making challenge?
|
modifying specific maps is also nice, but such a challenge should be more specific, e.g. what aspects are ok, what is the map's unchangeable feature, etc.
i am not sure if one could get destructable bridges working without loosing the melee-tag and i would prefer to find a solution within map design and less through modding, but such stuff could ne an interesting direction. since most of us do more melee maps than mods I guess we have to focus on "easier" tasks.
keep the ideas coming!
|
Mains on lowest ground only.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On August 14 2011 06:47 Phried wrote:
Mains on lowest ground only.
Doing this in conjunction with a few of my ideas:
-Mass LOS blockers
-Rocks
-Every base has backdoors except the main.
|
On August 14 2011 07:13 TehTemplar wrote:Doing this in conjunction with a few of my ideas: -Mass LOS blockers -Rocks -Every base has backdoors except the main.
Ooooo, that gives me an idea.
A completely flat, continuous, one level map. You are not allowed to use terrain features other than to create the initial playable area. You must use doodads/DR only to create a layout.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On August 14 2011 07:25 Phried wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:13 TehTemplar wrote:On August 14 2011 06:47 Phried wrote:
Mains on lowest ground only. Doing this in conjunction with a few of my ideas: -Mass LOS blockers -Rocks -Every base has backdoors except the main. Ooooo, that gives me an idea. A completely flat, continuous, one level map. You are not allowed to use terrain features other than to create the initial playable area. You must use doodads/DR only to create a layout.
That's too hard D:
I managed to make a map with like 6 destructible rocks and a LOT of LOS blockers (but only nats and thirds and golds have a backdoor D: ). I will post a map thread tomorrow, maybe tonight!
Edit: Mains on low ground was EZ. I just made a map, then switched the main and nat xD
|
On August 14 2011 10:15 TehTemplar wrote:
Mains on low ground was EZ. I just made a map, then switched the main and nat xD
I can take it one further. Keep the positioning of the nat and the main normal, but still have the main on low ground.
|
Make a standard map, but without cliff, so using only the height tool and pathing blocker for painting no ground.
|
Challenge: Make a 7 player rotational symetri map!
On August 14 2011 06:47 Phried wrote:
Mains on lowest ground only.
My next MOTM submission will feature mains on low gruond! The main/nat is set up in a way that I have not seen before so I look forward to the reactions once I am done with the map.
|
A balanced map with only one of the (x) spawn positions in the Centre. I'm imagining in my head and I don't actually know if it's possible but I think there are people with more imagination than me here.
|
some ideas are quite similar to ideas proclaimed before, e.g. one cliff level / no cliff / only doodads to define playable area, etc.
I edited the second post with all ideas. there are some good ones i think, but a few might need a bit better definitions.
On August 14 2011 17:36 zasta wrote:
A balanced map with only one of the (x) spawn positions in the Centre. I'm imagining in my head and I don't actually know if it's possible but I think there are people with more imagination than me here.
please elaborate on this idea.
|
Well I personally don't think I'm fit to judge anyone's map but I was already about to suggest this to iGrok for MotM restriction:
Last time we had a restriction in MotM it was 3 spawn maps, which imo was great cause at the time no one really made them but there were quite a lot of unexplored layouts, so we saw a lot of interesting resulsts.
Afaik there are not that many possibilities for making a rotational/mirrored map, there's only 2 spawn, 3 spawn rotational, 4 spawn rotational and 4 spawn mirrored (and shifted symmetry which I don't really understand).
But there is one more possibility that is yet very unexplored: 4-2 maps (Superouman's name for it) or double cross/double 2player maps (suggestions for future naming from me^^).
This means maps with 4 spawns, but only cross spawns are mirrored and playable. Examples for this are Starparty V + Show Spoiler + or this (apparently abandoned) map idea by lefix + Show Spoiler +
So yeah, I challenge everybody to make more maps like this cause I think there is sooo many possibilities and having two 1v1 maps in one map is just cool :D
|
On August 14 2011 20:29 Ragoo wrote:Afaik there are not that many possibilities for making a rotational/mirrored map, there's only 2 spawn, 3 spawn rotational, 4 spawn rotational and 4 spawn mirrored (and shifted symmetry which I don't really understand). But there is one more possibility that is yet very unexplored: 4-2 maps (Superouman's name for it) or double cross/double 2player maps (suggestions for future naming from me^^). This means maps with 4 spawns, but only cross spawns are mirrored and playable. Examples for this are Starparty V + Show Spoiler + or this (apparently abandoned) map idea by lefix + Show Spoiler +So yeah, I challenge everybody to make more maps like this cause I think there is sooo many possibilities and having two 1v1 maps in one map is just cool :D
I tried some stuff and this directions and discussed it quite a bit with some pf thr TPW guys. Tbh i never was really satisfied with the results: you did not have to scout at all. the only question was: do we spawn on this or on that side of the map. so in the end a normal two player often has much more interesting layouts.
So this idea could be a great entry as a possible challenge, because nobody really came up with something really good.
The nice thing in combining two maps in one is that you can make a map that is not auto-ruled out by a player of a specific race.
i would call this a twisted symmetry or a 2in1, because it is 2 rotational symmetry maps in one.
i would also like to add another now that metalopolis is kind of gone from the mappool
Challenge: Fix Metalopolis close position and make it more intersting by addition or substraction of bases, shakuras like shift symmetry, twisted symmetries or something alike.
|
On August 14 2011 20:29 Ragoo wrote:Well I personally don't think I'm fit to judge anyone's map but I was already about to suggest this to iGrok for MotM restriction: Last time we had a restriction in MotM it was 3 spawn maps, which imo was great cause at the time no one really made them but there were quite a lot of unexplored layouts, so we saw a lot of interesting resulsts. Afaik there are not that many possibilities for making a rotational/mirrored map, there's only 2 spawn, 3 spawn rotational, 4 spawn rotational and 4 spawn mirrored (and shifted symmetry which I don't really understand). But there is one more possibility that is yet very unexplored: 4-2 maps (Superouman's name for it) or double cross/double 2player maps (suggestions for future naming from me^^). This means maps with 4 spawns, but only cross spawns are mirrored and playable. Examples for this are Starparty V + Show Spoiler + or this (apparently abandoned) map idea by lefix + Show Spoiler +So yeah, I challenge everybody to make more maps like this cause I think there is sooo many possibilities and having two 1v1 maps in one map is just cool :D
I was actually planning to try something like this. I always liked the idea because it was like having two different 1v1 maps in one.
|
Destructible bridges that are actually relevant in the map :D
|
On August 14 2011 20:40 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 20:29 Ragoo wrote:Afaik there are not that many possibilities for making a rotational/mirrored map, there's only 2 spawn, 3 spawn rotational, 4 spawn rotational and 4 spawn mirrored (and shifted symmetry which I don't really understand). But there is one more possibility that is yet very unexplored: 4-2 maps (Superouman's name for it) or double cross/double 2player maps (suggestions for future naming from me^^). This means maps with 4 spawns, but only cross spawns are mirrored and playable. Examples for this are Starparty V + Show Spoiler + or this (apparently abandoned) map idea by lefix + Show Spoiler +So yeah, I challenge everybody to make more maps like this cause I think there is sooo many possibilities and having two 1v1 maps in one map is just cool :D I tried some stuff and this directions and discussed it quite a bit with some pf thr TPW guys. Tbh i never was really satisfied with the results: you did not have to scout at all. the only question was: do we spawn on this or on that side of the map. so in the end a normal two player often has much more interesting layouts. So this idea could be a great entry as a possible challenge, because nobody really came up with something really good. The nice thing in combining two maps in one is that you can make a map that is not auto-ruled out by a player of a specific race. i would call this a twisted symmetry or a 2in1, because it is 2 rotational symmetry maps in one. i would also like to add another now that metalopolis is kind of gone from the mappool Challenge: Fix Metalopolis close position and make it more intersting by addition or substraction of bases, shakuras like shift symmetry, twisted symmetries or something alike.
I call it Starparty Symmetry! Simply because it was the first sc2 map to do it.
Also my challenge to anyone out there: Make a 5p map that can handle neighbor spawns.
|
Okay, we have slowly get this sorted out a bit. I will not be onlöine the next two days, so I try to group our points and rank them as possible/Interesting (imo)
My plan is to organize the first Challenges and i want to ask the people who proclaimed each challenge to help me with organizing/judging on a rather laid back level. I hope the map maker submitting an entry will also comment other maps and get a discussiong going and it is not about actually judging what map is better, yet a discourse about what is intersting, what features might work in a competitive game, etc.
Here is what I think:
restrictions on terrain
The Small Map Challenge might the the most interesting here.
+ Show Spoiler +1. one cliff level with/without using cliffs On August 13 2011 20:12 lefix wrote:
one cliff level
9. IslandsOn August 14 2011 04:35 Gl!tch wrote: Island maps :D 10. Low Mains On August 14 2011 06:47 Phried wrote:
Mains on lowest ground only. 14. small maps: 80x80 or 88x88 mentioned by lefix
gimmick stuff
all things that might be nice additions in combination to another Challenge or extra concepts to an entry by individual map makers
+ Show Spoiler +2. Maze On August 13 2011 20:12 lefix wrote:
mazes (fun maps)
6. Forcefields On August 14 2011 04:34 TedJustice wrote:
Use pre-placed forcefields in an interesting way. Careful, cause they can bug pathing. Units pretend forcefields don't exist when they calculate pathing, so you've got to keep that in mind. 7. Creep On August 14 2011 04:34 TedJustice wrote:
Use neutral creep tumors in some way. You can put them on a 1x1 high ground area to make it so they won't spread creep unless there's already creep near them.
odd number of spawns or even asymmetries
While 5-p seems more do-able than 7p the concept of asymmetry stands out for be, because it can be a 1v1 but also a 7p-map.
2in1 Symmetry might be ok, but personally i am more interested in more 3p maps.
+ Show Spoiler +
fixing a map
this is something were we could start with one of the new ladder maps or take a classic sc2 map like metalopolis and try to fix close position and cw/ccw expansions patterns,
+ Show Spoiler +8. Fixing a map / Searing Crater On August 14 2011 04:39 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
New idea (thanks prodiG):
Turn Searing Crater into a good, balanced map.
Take that TL! On August 14 2011 20:40 Samro225am wrote:
Challenge: Fix Metalopolis close position and make it more intersting by addition or substraction of bases, shakuras like shift symmetry, twisted symmetries or something alike.
i think many topics could be combined in an entry, e.g. you use creep on a small map to create a more balanced game or whatever.
let me know what you think, are there any real DOs or DONTs? What direction do you prefer? Should we do a Challenge of each direction?
I'll try to organize the first few rounds and hope to get some help or that the community helps itself and more experienced map maker do some super unique challenges in the near future.
|
"i think many topics could be combined in an entry, e.g. you use creep on a small map to create a more balanced game or whatever."
lol not on too small of a map ^^ zerg owns on tiny maps.
|
On August 15 2011 04:33 WniO wrote:
"i think many topics could be combined in an entry, e.g. you use creep on a small map to create a more balanced game or whatever."
lol not on too small of a map ^^ zerg owns on tiny maps.
+ Show Spoiler +more balanced game or whatever
on a more serious note: it depends, just imagine a small map using all three cliff level.
|
This is pretty interesting....exetremly interesting actually.
I've got one more idea i would like to throw in.
Make a map without terrain.(All terrain cells hidden.)
You would have to use doodads to indicate the paths of terrain and what is and is not pathable.
But this is pretty interesting to say the least.
|
make map where there is no cliff and only doodad as boundary, (like some cool city or forest etc etc.)
|
We already have that @wnio
|
well fine then, make a map with invisible walls but in random spots... would be pretty funny lol
|
|
|
- experimenting with expansion resources: 3gas expansion instead of gold minerals, tight path with raw geyser and blocked when built, gas only expansion, minerals free but gas under rocks etc
- taking XYZ map and reworking it to play very differently (i.e. removing back door on Blistering Sands and putting a base there, somebody else turning 4th base into an island etc)
- unconventional main > natural setups (a la Coruption)
- unconventional chokes/ramps (aka Bel'Shir Beach)
- points of interest on islands in middle of map (like Xel'Naga towers)
That's what I got so far
|
how about: half bases. all baes have 4patches and 1 gas, mains and nats included.
or low minerals that will run out quickly
|
,I actually worked with an idea for awhile where all bases had 16 mineral patches and 4 gas. The mineral patches had 500 minerals each and the gases 800 gas. You effectively have 2x the income per base but it would run out in 1/3 of the time.
|
I have a couple ideas. I think most can be just judged by the community, but some can't.
- Asymmetry map challenge. Map is completely asymmetrical, most balanced wins - would need qualified judges.
- Island map challenge. Most creative and fun map. Judged by the community.
- Map with an odd number of spawn places. It could be 3, 5, 7, or more. This combines most of the ideas into one, and could be judged by the community.
These seem like the most helpful and interesting challenges. You could benefit a lot from experimenting on any of these!
Shall we vote?
Poll: What should the map challenge be?Asymmetrical maps. (9) 56% Odd Number of spawns. (4) 25% Island maps. (3) 19% 16 total votes Your vote: What should the map challenge be? (Vote): Island maps.
(Vote): Asymmetrical maps.
(Vote): Odd Number of spawns.
|
On August 15 2011 09:23 monitor wrote:I have a couple ideas. I think most can be just judged by the community, but some can't. - Asymmetry map challenge. Map is completely asymmetrical, most balanced wins - would need qualified judges.
- Island map challenge. Most creative and fun map. Judged by the community.
- Map with an odd number of spawn places. It could be 3, 5, 7, or more. This combines most of the ideas into one, and could be judged by the community.
These seem like the most helpful and interesting challenges. You could benefit a lot from experimenting on any of these!
Shall we vote? Poll: What should the map challenge be?Asymmetrical maps. (9) 56% Odd Number of spawns. (4) 25% Island maps. (3) 19% 16 total votes Your vote: What should the map challenge be? (Vote): Island maps.
(Vote): Asymmetrical maps.
(Vote): Odd Number of spawns.
Did you read my posts?
The three challenges you posted should all be done really. I'll try to get judges for each challenge asking the people who brought up each thing initially.
We should discuss how much time we want a challenge to run? A format from mid of month to mid of month could be a nice addition in between motm.
I'll send PMs to possible judges ( basically the person who challenged the community +2) and we can start the first challenge in a few days.
|
imho, you should also keep in mind that all those challenges should be kept small and not require too much work. if they do, you might as well do a solid normal map instead of something gimmicky. but maybe that's just me.
|
On August 15 2011 17:50 lefix wrote:
imho, you should also keep in mind that all those challenges should be kept small and not require too much work. if they do, you might as well do a solid normal map instead of something gimmicky. but maybe that's just me.
it is all about new things on the level of making layouts, hence basic but well made texturing and doodading is sufficen I guess.
making an interesing asymetrical map > doing another solid boring same same
btw: why not spend more time on a challenge map than on a regular one really?
|
well, to me it sounds like the challenges are about trying out new things.
personally, i prefer trying things out on small projects first, and then use the idea on an actual project if it is showing any promise, you might also have new insight on how to make it better.
i'd hate to spend dozens of hours on a project trying out something now that in the end isn't going to work ^^
think of it as prototypes of new map concepts
|
I agree with lefix, this shouldn't be about exact proportions and stunning visuals, high level refinement takes too much time.
I'm fine with basic texturing and maybe some basic doodads, some easy natural stuff so it doesn't totally look like shit when you playtest
Overall it's more important that you clearly show an interesting concept that you or others can use in there "real" maps.
|
|
|
Make a three player map that's not radially symmetric. Something like a scrap station, except the gold base would be a third main spawning point.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On August 15 2011 08:06 lefix wrote:
how about: half bases. all baes have 4patches and 1 gas, mains and nats included.
or low minerals that will run out quickly
Done it, never posted it on TL.
How about a map with ~25 bases?
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
Did I hear someone ask for a Gold Mineral Main base?
btw: why not spend more time on a challenge map than on a regular one really?
I think for most mapmakers it is just not interesting, to spend 40hours on a project, that noone wants to test (because of "obvious imbalance"), that can't compete in MapperTournaments (because of "obvious imbalance") and won't get useful comments ("Interesting idea, never seen it before... GL making it work!").
That's why I think tournaments like MotM should pick up that topic! It will be the only way to encourage people to try it. ("At least I was Top5 in MotM#9")
Of course there has to be a lot of time in between the topic anouncment and the Top5 decision, so people actually have time to make those maps...
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rpzws.jpg)
- 3 players map
- not symetric in any way
- Islands
- rock blocking gas
That covers pretty much all the challenges, right ?
Ofc it needs testing to check if it's balanced, rush distances are about the same for every possible spawn (120-130 nat to nat and 165-170 main to main). I tried to balance the obvious advantages for each spawn by other advantages for the opposite side, for example south gold looks easier to defend for south player., so it has rocks, not the north gold.
|
this might be worth an entry, but we won't design the challenge specifically for your map
challenge will be proclaimed until wednesday 12pm cet
|
On August 15 2011 23:10 fenX wrote:+ Show Spoiler +- 3 players map - not symetric in any way - Islands - rock blocking gas That covers pretty much all the challenges, right ? Ofc it needs testing to check if it's balanced, rush distances are about the same for every possible spawn (120-130 nat to nat and 165-170 main to main). I tried to balance the obvious advantages for each spawn by other advantages for the opposite side, for example south gold looks easier to defend for south player., so it has rocks, not the north gold.
Man that looks awesome ^^ really interested how it plays out
|
fenx you should put one of those mains on lowground imo, but it looks fantastic.
|
I would love to see a map that makes effective use of terrain that blocks air movement. It could either completely block an area off, creating a no fly zone (eg, but not limited to, at the edges/corners of maps), or just cause enough of an obstacle to constrict air movement.
An example of air blocking terrain is the rock column in this map: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=235805
|
maps with hostile creatures to both players!
|
Doesn't that require triggers if you want them to leash? Otherwise they'd just follow the units until something bites the dust
|
hmm i assumed you'd just place a unit on the map, assign it to a team and set the team to hostile in player settings? i haven't actually tried it before
|
On August 16 2011 03:16 lefix wrote:
hmm i assumed you'd just place a unit on the map, assign it to a team and set the team to hostile in player settings? i haven't actually tried it before
I'm pretty sure that there is a default "hostile" player. (Player 15 I think).
|
On August 16 2011 03:16 lefix wrote:
hmm i assumed you'd just place a unit on the map, assign it to a team and set the team to hostile in player settings? i haven't actually tried it before
I remember somebody trying to make a map where there would be a shortcut with a hostile Ultralisk guarding the pit. I'm not 100% positive, but I think that person said that you would need a trigger to leash the Ultralisk so one can not kite it to the opponents base to wreck havoc on purpose in early game.
I could be mistaken though, it's an awesome idea if it can work without triggers.
|
On August 16 2011 03:11 Fearlezz wrote:
Doesn't that require triggers if you want them to leash? Otherwise they'd just follow the units until something bites the dust
Morrow did this back in beta in one of his maps http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133238. Apparently he set the Ultralisk to hostile and it worked, so the Ultralisk wasn't following a unit forever but instead he goes back.
Btw the no fly zone thing is really interesting imo
|
Yes, that is the map. And yes, I stand corrected ^^
|
might be a nice way to fix close spawn rush distances :D
|
This looks fun to play on. I hope it's balanced. We need more like this, because you can only do so much with symmetry.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Dang!
I'm halfway through a 3 player map that is also far from symmetric. Look out for it!
|
Love this thread - I wanted to make a similar thread, but you beat me to it 
I have a nice challenge too:
Make a map with partial or total intentional positional imbalance.
You have to secure that both spawns (or all 3-4) have advantages and disadvantages.
One possibility is to have one main have a secondary entrance (NOT blistering sands style) and the other being a sunken main.
Let one have an easy second base - the other closer 3rd and 4th.
Let one have big vulnerability to air - the other a wider ramp.
Or make up your own wierd imbalances.
Lets see how mapmakers would tacle that.
|
|
|
1] Instead of bases being in the corners of a map...have a map where one spawn is in the center and the other in a corner. The shortest path being blocked by rocks. This would let the center player expand away from his opponent while the corner player gets the advantage of a relatively easy pincher attack paths.
2] block paths with low mineral patches instead of rocks. Forces a player to either risk workers by long range mining to clear a path or to stretch out his army to protect those workers.
3] the lava coming up and blocking paths/killing units has already been done outside of campaign, hasn't it?
|
On August 18 2011 10:57 mikiao wrote:
2] block paths with low mineral patches instead of rocks. Forces a player to either risk workers by long range mining to clear a path or to stretch out his army to protect those workers.
MULEs make this very imbalanced.
|
|
|
the mirror match idea isn't bad at all i think.
many others idea mentioned on this page are already possible within the framwork of other possible topics/challenges. I'll try to pick up all new ideas in the next days and edit them in the op.
On August 17 2011 03:56 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:Love this thread - I wanted to make a similar thread, but you beat me to it I have a nice challenge too: Make a map with partial or total intentional positional imbalance. You have to secure that both spawns (or all 3-4) have advantages and disadvantages. One possibility is to have one main have a secondary entrance (NOT blistering sands style) and the other being a sunken main. Let one have an easy second base - the other closer 3rd and 4th. Let one have big vulnerability to air - the other a wider ramp. Or make up your own wierd imbalances. Lets see how mapmakers would tacle that.
is this not pretty much the same we are already running with the asymmetric map challenge? at least is is possible within the already running challenge
|
Yes it is possible to do that in the running challenge - but the point of that challenge is to force "imbalanced" maps. The point of the running challenge is to destroy symmetry (I actually expect map makers to try and balance rush distance ect. in the current challenge). I wanted to see how map makers (and players) would deal with clear imbalances, and the tradeoffs made to make the maps fair.
|
On August 18 2011 11:14 Fearlezz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 10:57 mikiao wrote:
2] block paths with low mineral patches instead of rocks. Forces a player to either risk workers by long range mining to clear a path or to stretch out his army to protect those workers. MULEs make this very imbalanced.
I don't know that wasting mules is imbalanced. Instead of 300minerals from the MULE, the terran opens a path slightly faster, losing on economy. I was more worried about Zerg mining, build a building, cancel building, mine again to open it quick (or do drones keep their minerals if you cancel?)
|
On August 19 2011 06:32 mikiao wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 11:14 Fearlezz wrote:On August 18 2011 10:57 mikiao wrote:
2] block paths with low mineral patches instead of rocks. Forces a player to either risk workers by long range mining to clear a path or to stretch out his army to protect those workers. MULEs make this very imbalanced. I don't know that wasting mules is imbalanced. Instead of 300minerals from the MULE, the terran opens a path slightly faster, losing on economy. I was more worried about Zerg mining, build a building, cancel building, mine again to open it quick (or do drones keep their minerals if you cancel?)
Drones keep their minerals if you cancel.
|
On August 19 2011 06:32 mikiao wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 18 2011 11:14 Fearlezz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 10:57 mikiao wrote:
2] block paths with low mineral patches instead of rocks. Forces a player to either risk workers by long range mining to clear a path or to stretch out his army to protect those workers. MULEs make this very imbalanced. I don't know that wasting mules is imbalanced. Instead of 300minerals from the MULE, the terran opens a path slightly faster, losing on economy. I was more worried about Zerg mining, build a building, cancel building, mine again to open it quick (or do drones keep their minerals if you cancel?)
Even if they didn't keep the minerals, how is wasting so many minerals on canceling buildings not losing on economy? I don't really see your point either way.
Also, another observation, LOS blockers on top/bottom of ramps make some interesting gameplay. I think in general there is a lot of experimenting to be done with LOS blockers to mix things up.
|
On August 21 2011 06:24 Fearlezz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 06:32 mikiao wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 18 2011 11:14 Fearlezz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 10:57 mikiao wrote:
2] block paths with low mineral patches instead of rocks. Forces a player to either risk workers by long range mining to clear a path or to stretch out his army to protect those workers. MULEs make this very imbalanced. I don't know that wasting mules is imbalanced. Instead of 300minerals from the MULE, the terran opens a path slightly faster, losing on economy. I was more worried about Zerg mining, build a building, cancel building, mine again to open it quick (or do drones keep their minerals if you cancel?) Even if they didn't keep the minerals, how is wasting so many minerals on canceling buildings not losing on economy? I don't really see your point either way. Also, another observation, LOS blockers on top/bottom of ramps make some interesting gameplay. I think in general there is a lot of experimenting to be done with LOS blockers to mix things up.
As far as I know, the best way to do it is build an extractor/refinery/assimilator on the nearest gas to the minerals you want to mine out, then repeatedly move between the gas and the minerals, as whatever the worker is carrying gets replaced.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Some challenges
-Make a balanced map with at least 8 rocks.
-Make a map that's a balanced remake of Scrap Station or Slag Pits.
-7 player map.
-Map that has a small rush distance through a very chokey path but a large rush distance through a more open path.
-A map with TWO in-base expansions (yes, I'm mad)
|
What would be rly nice is a map with 4 or 5 elevation levels. I've never seen one, anyone did?
|
your Country52797 Posts
Ok, I have the unspoken, the horrifying challenge of DEATH. Nobody ever dares to attempt this.
Make a 2 player map with 16 bases.
That is all.
Edit: I've done this ^^
In conjunction with my 8 rocks or more challenge.
|
On August 21 2011 23:44 TehTemplar wrote:
Ok, I have the unspoken, the horrifying challenge of DEATH. Nobody ever dares to attempt this.
Make a 2 player map with 16 bases.
That is all.
Edit: I've done this ^^
In conjunction with my 8 rocks or more challenge.
Remove 2 spawn spots from tal darim altar. Done, took me 20 seconds.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On August 22 2011 00:02 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 23:44 TehTemplar wrote:
Ok, I have the unspoken, the horrifying challenge of DEATH. Nobody ever dares to attempt this.
Make a 2 player map with 16 bases.
That is all.
Edit: I've done this ^^
In conjunction with my 8 rocks or more challenge. Remove 2 spawn spots from tal darim altar. Done, took me 20 seconds.
...
|
there are a lot of points that are interesting, many that weere put forward before and some that do not make sense
i want to motivate you to take part in the current challenge
|
I had an idea that I will put forward for map makers more skilled than I.
The idea is this: instead of making a xelnaga watchtower that provides vision, have it activate line of sight blockers somewhere on the map that were previously inactive (either next to the watchtower itself, or somewhere else on the map). This could be used in conjunction with normal watchtowers or independently.
This can be used either offensively (to restrict the opponent's vision) or defensively (to hide your own movement through an area, or hide an expansion, or even to trick your opponent into thinking you are doing one of these things).
|
|
|
I think making a map that has a 300 supply cap limit would be pretty cool (day9 talked about this before)... A 300 supply limit could lead to more epic games, more drones, more macro, more micro, and more macro...
Or people could just modify an already existing map to have a 300 supply cap.
|
As a current particapator in map challenge #1, I would like to say that my favorite idea is a mass LoSB map.
I was going to try to create one anyways. Have LoSB EVERYWHERE and then lots of Xel'Naga Watchtowers so that controlling those will be very important. It may entice people to build static D out on the map near the towers to help defend with fewer units. I think it would make for a very interesting game.
|
a map of completely custom textures (think of something completely different, like possible underwater or something), custom creep, and a mirrored 2player map, with 1 mirror line, (like how scrap station is, with the diagonal line of symmetry)
|
i wish some one would so a map like scrap station, but more balanced and good (big ramp, long rush distance, short air distance, and maybe even the rocks to make path shorter), i loved scrap, and i think it could be balanced if there was an easier 3rd or something ^^ gl!
|
Rotterdam just stated an awesome map making challenge on stream:
Make a good map that's called Candy Shop! : D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XHUNa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uuAbc.jpg)
