• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 18:45
CEST 00:45
KST 07:45
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four0BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3
StarCraft 2
General
The New Patch Killed Mech! Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy herO joins T1 Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 INu's Battles #13 - ByuN vs Zoun Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
BW caster Sayle BSL Season 21 BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET
Tourneys
Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [ASL20] Semifinal B [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
[I] TvP Strategies and Build Roaring Currents ASL final [I] TvZ Strategies and Builds Current Meta
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Dawn of War IV ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1332 users

[Mapping Challenge] #1 Asymmetric Maps - Page 3

Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Profile Joined December 2010
Denmark697 Posts
August 31 2011 10:57 GMT
#41
Ohhhh so much stuff to write...
Well first things first:
@RumbleBadger - I'm not a mapper myself, but I think making the middle a bit bigger, and giving it more terrain to make a more cirkular middle might help a lot. As it is now, zerg have no way of circumventing an opposing army in the middle, but with a bit more restrictive middle they will. The middle need to be larger if you make this change, just so the paths are not narrow and easy to hold.

@fenX - now THAT looks good. Others have given ideas for tweaks, so I will just appreciate how well that map is turning out.

@HypertonicHydroponic: AAAAAAaaaaa... - okay now for serious analysis: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh, that map is maddingly wierd. First off - there are two entrances to each base, and thats a no-go in mapping. Walling in is impossible, and the map will easily turn into a coinflip. Secondly, the map is just too small. Thirdly, there is no "dead space" so things like reapers wreck this map. The idea is good, but you need bigger clearer defined mains with only one entrance, move the madness from the mains to the naturals and third/fourth instead and it could become very interesting.
Go try StarBow on the Arcade. TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=440661
Samro225am
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany982 Posts
August 31 2011 13:33 GMT
#42
[image loading]
this is what i quickly came up with. i am on vacatio for a few days, but i might be back in time to produce this as my own contribution to this challenge.

i hope some of the other judges and the challenger FlopTurnReaver will join us in this thread soon.
RumbleBadger
Profile Joined July 2011
322 Posts
August 31 2011 18:37 GMT
#43
I've done some work on redoing terrain slightly... here's the latest version in analyzer pics.

+ Show Spoiler [summary] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Cliff levels] +

[image loading]
Games before dames.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Profile Joined December 2010
Denmark697 Posts
August 31 2011 19:32 GMT
#44
I would love to see that in normal map view - its an interesting solution to the problem with a tight middle, and it just might work. I can't see any way any race can lock down the middle completely now, and the close 3rd/4th for 5 o'clock is less of a problem.

Unless you go mad with theorycrafting, the only way to improve this map IMO is trial by nerds.
Go try StarBow on the Arcade. TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=440661
RumbleBadger
Profile Joined July 2011
322 Posts
August 31 2011 20:27 GMT
#45
On September 01 2011 04:32 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I would love to see that in normal map view - its an interesting solution to the problem with a tight middle, and it just might work. I can't see any way any race can lock down the middle completely now, and the close 3rd/4th for 5 o'clock is less of a problem.

Unless you go mad with theorycrafting, the only way to improve this map IMO is trial by nerds.

Thank you! =D And I like the phrase trial by nerds.

Here's a fully textured angled and overhead view (forewarning: the water near the top in these pics looks like crap, it looks much better in game, so don't judge too hard =D):

+ Show Spoiler [Overview] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Angled] +

[image loading]


By the way, I'll probably be calling this map Stepway...
Games before dames.
Namrufus
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States396 Posts
August 31 2011 22:07 GMT
#46
On September 01 2011 03:37 RumbleBadger wrote:
I've done some work on redoing terrain slightly... here's the latest version in analyzer pics.

+ Show Spoiler [summary] +

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Cliff levels] +

[image loading]


If you want to improve contrast for the different cliff levels on the analyzer output so you can see them clearly in the summary, you can change the terrainElev variables in the colors.txt file in the map analyzer folder.

I'm using this combination, it seems to work ok with the green-blue openness color scheme.

terrainElev0 = 0x000000
terrainElev1 = 0.1, 0.1, 0.1
terrainElev2 = 0.4, 0.4, 0.4
terrainElev3 = 0.7, 0.7, 0.7

and your map is looking really nice btw.
This is it... the alpaca lips.
dezi
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Germany1536 Posts
September 01 2011 10:02 GMT
#47
Hi there, i'm back from vacation and after laying at the beach during daytime i also had some time to create an asymmetric map.

[image loading]

Connected spawns (small passage for reapers) are disabled (5+7 and 9+11). As you can see all spawns are on the same half of the map (i consider this unique at least for a 4 spawn). Chokes can be blocked with 1Rax/Gate+1Depot/Pylon. Rush distances are mostly around 160 (main 2 main) and around 105 (nat 2 nat). I don't consider this map well balanced but any small advantage also leads to a small disadvantage (f.e. 9 o'clock has it's nat close nearby but the main minerals have their back next to the huge void space behind the main area (hello there air).

Would really be interested to see mappers create more such maps (with improved balance/layout/... BUT) with all 4 spawns on the same half to create a real new 4 spawn experience for the players and viewers (rotational and reflected maps are overdone).



Map isn't uploaded yet.
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]
TPW Member | My Maps @ TL: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=171486 | Search 'dezi' at EU
Glexarn
Profile Joined December 2010
United States40 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-01 16:31:08
September 01 2011 16:19 GMT
#48
Hi! I've made a few maps in my time, and really enjoy mapmaking, but I've never had the confidence to post any of them, so this is the first map I've actually posted. Textures are nowhere near complete - that's a job for after the map's considered tolerably designed - but basic textures have been placed for sanity's sake such that the map isn't just one texture.

(small personal note: this was difficult for me because of how painstaking I am about map symmetry, and I think that shows in the map's design)

[image loading]

Name: Geostationary
Playable size: 144x144
Full size: 176x176
Player count: 3
Tileset: Castanar (Installation)
Playable as: Melee (1v1), Melee FFA (1v1v1)

Published to Battle.net North America as Geostationary

Images in spoiler tags:
+ Show Spoiler +

Summary:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Top down view:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Angled view:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Analyzer pics:
+ Show Spoiler +

2'o clock - 4'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

2'o clock - 11'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

4'o clock - 11'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]




Criticism is highly desired (and needed), because I don't have friends to playtest my maps with.
"I am greatful for the sharpest criticism, as long as it is factual." -Otto von Bismarck
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Profile Joined December 2010
Denmark697 Posts
September 01 2011 19:55 GMT
#49
@Glexarn - Well its kinda obvious that you are no good at breaking symmetry, but hopefully your further work on this map will break it up a bit. It looks like a solid map, but some more work is needed.
The map looks a bit small and open, you might want to move some expansions further from the center to make it less "arenalike". Secondly the main-nat distance of each base looks amazingly short and the mains themselves are quite easy to defend from everything but reapers. I think you need smoe vulnerability to prevent two base turteling.
It also looks like the 2 is at a disadvantage against 11 in taking a 3rd base.

@dezi - Looks solid, but its kinda symmetrical along the 2-8 o'clock axis, and there are small but clear advantages in spawning in the outer positions rather than the inner positions.
Go try StarBow on the Arcade. TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=440661
Roblin
Profile Joined April 2010
Sweden948 Posts
September 01 2011 19:55 GMT
#50
On September 02 2011 01:19 Glexarn wrote:
Hi! I've made a few maps in my time, and really enjoy mapmaking, but I've never had the confidence to post any of them, so this is the first map I've actually posted. Textures are nowhere near complete - that's a job for after the map's considered tolerably designed - but basic textures have been placed for sanity's sake such that the map isn't just one texture.

(small personal note: this was difficult for me because of how painstaking I am about map symmetry, and I think that shows in the map's design)

[image loading]

Name: Geostationary
Playable size: 144x144
Full size: 176x176
Player count: 3
Tileset: Castanar (Installation)
Playable as: Melee (1v1), Melee FFA (1v1v1)

Published to Battle.net North America as Geostationary

Images in spoiler tags:
+ Show Spoiler +

Summary:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Top down view:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Angled view:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Analyzer pics:
+ Show Spoiler +

2'o clock - 4'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

2'o clock - 11'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

4'o clock - 11'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]




Criticism is highly desired (and needed), because I don't have friends to playtest my maps with.

you know, that sounds incredibly lonely, I would suggest you just make some SC2-friends, chitchatting with people in ladder and then asking if they want a rematch after the game regardless of the outcome is an excellent way of finding people to play with that are even with you in regards to skill, I recently played with a guy that forgot to turn his race back to protoss from zerg when in ladder queue and I asked him if we could play some more later, we are now placed in platinum 2v2, it was really fun.

as for the map, you are right, it looks very much like a 2 player mirrored map which had a 3rd player forced in, which made it non-mirrored, but some things that could be worked with is:

1. size and shape of the mains, as you already know, each main is identical, but rotated and/or mirrored versions of eachother, changing them to not fit each others shape would force a massive change in the layout of the map around it.

2. the attackpaths of 2-4 look identical, changing 1 attackpath will, as in 1, force a change in other things around it/them.

I am not a very experienced mapmaker, else Im sure I would have more feedback.

have a good day.
I'm better today than I was yesterday!
Namrufus
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States396 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-01 20:37:13
September 01 2011 20:36 GMT
#51
On September 02 2011 01:19 Glexarn wrote:
Hi! I've made a few maps in my time, and really enjoy mapmaking, but I've never had the confidence to post any of them, so this is the first map I've actually posted. Textures are nowhere near complete - that's a job for after the map's considered tolerably designed - but basic textures have been placed for sanity's sake such that the map isn't just one texture.

(small personal note: this was difficult for me because of how painstaking I am about map symmetry, and I think that shows in the map's design)

Name: Geostationary
Playable size: 144x144
Full size: 176x176
Player count: 3
Tileset: Castanar (Installation)
Playable as: Melee (1v1), Melee FFA (1v1v1)

Published to Battle.net North America as Geostationary

Images in spoiler tags:
+ Show Spoiler +

Summary:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Top down view:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Angled view:
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Analyzer pics:
+ Show Spoiler +

2'o clock - 4'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

2'o clock - 11'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

4'o clock - 11'o clock
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]




Criticism is highly desired (and needed), because I don't have friends to playtest my maps with.


I agree that the map could use a little less symmetry. As Roblin says above, I would suggest making one change at a time and then working though the changes that are forced on the rest of the map to support the change, that's how I did alot of the work on my own asymmetric map.

Also it looks like the central bases will be almost impossible to hold for any player, with the combination of the central watchtower, the cliffs behind the minerals and the super-narrow entrance ramps, I can't see how any player could justify the risk of expanding to any of the bases there.

@Zaphod Beeblebrox
The map size is fine imo, I think 160 rush distance main2main is reasonable (xelnaga carverns is around 140), I was actually expecting around 120-130 main2main from the overview and was surprised when it was as long as it is.

edit: spelling
This is it... the alpaca lips.
robih
Profile Joined September 2010
Austria1086 Posts
September 01 2011 22:30 GMT
#52
i am really looking forward to how this turns out
i always loved asymetrical maps
lawol
Profile Joined February 2011
91 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-01 23:27:35
September 01 2011 23:26 GMT
#53
This seems like a pretty cool concept, and some of the maps are looking awesome lol ;o Anyway I'm giving the comp a go myself, here is the top down look so far:

[image loading]

Some map analyser pics:
http://i.imgur.com/Cww8x.png
http://i.imgur.com/w8A0U.png

I've already started texturing and decorating, but thats mainly because I'm still new to the editor and am just trying to figure out how to get a nice natural look to things.

I had some difficulty with the symmetry, I think the main and natural might be classed as such - is it? :o Any other feedback is welcome! lol
@lawolawol
The_Templar
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
your Country52797 Posts
September 01 2011 23:50 GMT
#54
Can I make a team map?
If so, what are the requirements?
Moderatorshe/her
TL+ Member
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-02 18:09:40
September 02 2011 17:36 GMT
#55
Ok in reverse order:

@ TehTemplar -- it doesn't seem to say this is limited to 1v1 concepts only, I think you should go for it. The OP just seems to say it has to be asymmetrical.

@ Zaphod Beeblebrox -- Where your map, bro? You seem to talk a big game for someone who has no map here and is also not a judge. Telling someone they aren't good at not doing symmetry? That's just not right dude. Please stick to map critcisms and not mapper criticisms.

As for what you had to say about my map, did you or did you not post this: this and this? You mention being interested in seeing mappers use clear imbalances to make an overall balanced map. And yet, you seem by your criticisms of my map (and others here) to just want more of the standard same old. Do you not see why I am inclined not to take your criticism very seriously?

I know full well that many of the features of the map are horrible for each race, and that's the point. Balance in imbalance. Yes, this challenge is specifically about asymmetry, but symmetry is one of the factors that brings more or less balance to a map. I decided to try a more extreme form. Have you ever played on The Hunter/Big Game Hunters? Expedition? Cauldron? The maps are pretty are pretty imbalanced symmetry wise, but they offer very fun games. I dare you to do take just a little bit more analytical a look at all of the maps here and not write down the first thing that jumps to you.

@ Glexarn -- I think you have an interesting map concept there. It is definately not completely symmetrical, but it is also not completely asymmetrical either. I don't know if that loses you points for this challenge, but I think it makes for an neat idea. If I had to invent a symmetry notation to describe your map, I would draw a line from upper right to lower left, another from a little left of dead center to middle right, and a curvey arrow from the middle to middle top with the concave on the right side. I think the map could show some interesting games, but I would probably move the Xel'Naga tower in the middle to right of the middle three bases so that it could see the thirds since you already have a tower that can see two of the middle bases. Otherwise, there does not seem to be much point to those bases being separate. Just my thought.

@ Dezi -- Nice idea, only one comment. It looks like the 6 (mineral only?) third is siegable from 9. This may be intended due to the 9 being more easily banshee harassable but I just thought I'd throw that out there (don't know why I see TvT for this map, heh).

@ FenX -- Yup, I fully plan on needing a bodygaurd. I was toying with the idea for the map title to be sometihng like "Masochism" but I decided to go with something just a little bit more subtle (that and the name is probably already taken). I realize the full extent of my sadistic-ness in that map, and am proud of it.

Here's the thing about making the map bigger to support larger mains, the rush distances of the far bases then become a lot more unmanagable. As it is, the furthest rush distances go up to 218. I will address this more below, but to be able to fit seven onto a map without it just being just seven mains with a big open middle or a big hetpapus (octapus missing a tentacle), you are going to have to make some mapping decisions that are not going to be as popular or at least as mainstream. I went there.

@ RumbleBadger -- Thank you for the kind words. Player pain aside, I too think this will end up being pretty balanced, even if more difficult than standard maps. I don't think scouting will take you as long as you think, but I think you will need to paradigm shift slightly and consider using a dual scouting route. One scout will go to the clockwise three bases, and the other will go to the counterclockwise three bases. If you don't find your opponent by the second base in that direction, you can be pretty well assured you are in for a long game. If you scout your opponent right away, you will need to consider walling off your near side and expand away. It will still probably end up being a very short micro game, but at least you cannot get walled in, and you can still try to macro up.



General comments: I've been considering the feedback and taking a look at the ground distances. But the more I do the math, the more I actually like it. Yes, the short distances are quite short, but there is really only a 1/3 chance that your opponent has spawned in one of the two close locations. If you send two scouts out on 9, you should be covered as far as knowing what kind of game you are in for. If you do not have an opponent at a neighboring base, you should be able to macro up quite a bit given the number of expansions and the fact that all of next bases over have decently lengthy ground distances (with the exception of the 6-9 distance). Also, even though there are many short distances, they go through many chokes/ramps that serve to mitigate some of that "problem".

I do not see the fact that each race will have to adapt the play style to fit the map to be a detriment. The best players do this anyway. Terran and protoss will have to build production along with their expansions, zerg will have to utilize the multiple routes to different locations, tanks, air, burrowed banes, drops, nydus, warp will have a heavier focus, builds will have to take into account the three different distance games, but I do not see any of that as insurmountable or map breaking. It'll be a chance to try things out that do not work as well on other maps simply because there are all of the straightforward wide paths and dead-end mains. I'm not saying those maps are bad, but they are standard. While this challenge is technically just about the symmetry, I wanted to take it to another level, so there it is. The only real concern I have is for the 6-9 ground distance since it means three potential close games for each base, but at the moment I justify that by the fact that those two bases are the most flexible as far as expanding and moving out that the extra risk I think is acceptable for now. I'll see how it plays out.

Anyway, for those who are interested in getting something out of all the analyzer shots, I have compiled the rush distances to a much more easily read and comparable format and have also done a little work on figuring out how scouting should work.

+ Show Spoiler +

One base over (Next)
2-4 = 89.7
4-6 = 73.0
6-7 = 88.4
7-9 = 95.3
9-11 = 116.8
11-12 = 107.9
12-2 = 76.3

avg. 92.5


Two bases over (Skip1)
2-6 = 151.0
4-7 = 158.7
6-9 = 83.1
7-11 = 183.9
9-12 = 143.3
11-2 = 172.2
4-12 = 147.8

avg. 148.6


Three bases over (Skip2)
2-7 = 212.7
4-9 = 151.0
6-11 = 193.1
7-12 = 193.1
9-2 = 183.9
11-4 = 218.1
12-6 = 168.5

avg. 188.6


Avg. per base
2 - Next: 83 - Skip1: 161.6 - Skip2: 198.3 - Total: 147.6333
4 - Next: 81.35 - Skip1: 153.25 - Skip2: 184.55 - Total: 139.71667
6 - Next: 80.7 - Skip1: 117.05 - Skip2: 180.8 - Total: 126.18333
7 - Next: 91.85 - Skip1: 171.3 - Skip2: 202.9 - Total: 155.35
9 - Next: 106.05 - Skip1: 113.2 - Skip2: 167.45 - Total: 128.9
11 - Next: 112.35 - Skip1: 178.05 - Skip2: 205.6 - Total: 165.333
12 - Next: 92.1 - Skip1: 145.55 - Skip2: 180.8 - Total: 139.48333


Scout paths (clockwise - parenthesis shows how much more distance than direct by ground):
2 - To4: 89.7 - To6: 162.7 (+11.7) - To7: 251.1 (+38.4) - To9: 346.4 (+162.5) - To11: 463.2 (+291) - To12: 571.1 (+494.8)
4 - To6: 73.0 - To7: 161.4 (+2.7) - To9: 256.7 (+100.1) - To11: 373.5 (+155.4) - To12: 481.4 (+333.6) - To2: 557.7 (+468)
6 - To7: 88.4 - To9: 183.7 (+100.6) - To11: 300.5 (+107.4) - To12: 408.4 (+239.9) - To2: 484.7 (+333.7) - To4: 574.4 (+501.4)
7 - To9: 95.3 - To11: 212.1 (+28.2) - To12: 320 (+126.9) - To2: 396.3 (+183.6) - To4: 486 (+327.3) - To6: 559 (+470.6)
9 - To11: 116.8 - To12: 224.7 (+81.4) - To2: 301 (+117.1) - To4: 390.7 (+239.7) - To6: 463.7 (+380.6) - To7: 552.1 (+456.8)
11 - To12: 107.9 - To2: 184.2 (+12) - To4: 273.9 (+55.8) - To6: 346.9 (+153.8) - To7: 435.3 (+251.4) - To9: 530.6 (+413.8)
12 - To2: 76.3 - To4: 166 (+18.2) - To6: 239 (+70.5) - To7: 327.4 (+134.3) - To9: 422.7 (+279.4) - To11: 539.5 (+431.6)


(this basically just shows that it is optimal scouting to send two scouts, and for one to go three bases clockwise and the other to go three bases counterclockwise. "over" is total distance over sending one scout to each base; "diff" is the difference in distance between the two scouts finishing their routes, I am not sure how to convert this to game seconds.)
2 - 4r/2l over: 174.5 diff: 162.2 - 3r/3l over: 155.5 diff: 49.9 - 2r/4l over: 195.3 diff: 233.6
4 - 4r/2l over: 173.6 diff: 207.5 - 3r/3l over: 155.9 diff: 17.2 - 2r/4l over: 242.4 diff: 229.3
6 - 4r/2l over: 251.6 diff: 245.7 - 3r/3l over: 177.9 diff: 61.5 - 2r/4l over: 254.4 diff: 163.2
7 - 4r/2l over: 186.3 diff: 234.9 - 3r/3l over: 165.3 diff: 68.9 - 2r/4l over: 162.5 diff: 115.3
9 - 4r/2l over: 340.3 diff: 207 - 3r/3l over: 217.2 diff: 44.3 - 2r/4l over: 243.9 diff: 121.7
11 - 4r/2l over: 182 diff: 134.8 - 3r/3l over: 163.2 diff: 26.6 - 2r/4l over: 167.4 diff: 189.3
12 - 4r/2l over: 215.7 diff: 102.7 - 3r/3l over: 197.4 diff: 81 - 2r/4l over: 258.1 diff: 242.4


Edit: Forgot to mention -- @ FenX -- there are no 4min 0gas locations. There is one 3min 1gas, location, and a random sprinkling of gas on the low ground, but every high ground is 8min 2gas, and every mid ground (with the noted exception) is 6min 1gas. There are 15 high ground (8/2) bases, and 24 mid ground (6/1) bases.
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Profile Joined December 2010
Denmark697 Posts
September 02 2011 21:20 GMT
#56
Whoa buddy don't be so mad, I was only trying to give constructive critisism. First off - Yes I'm not a mapper, but I feel strongly for the idea of challenging mappers to think differently, and I would like to help in any way possible. Secondly - I tried to use humor in my response to you. If it's a bit hard to see and you feel offended I'm sorry.

No to explain myself. Two entrances to the base might be balanced, but in a wrong way. No effective wall-in means early rushes will be far too effective. This is of cource not as big a problem as there are more spawn to scout - but this means games might be coinflips instead of strategic wins, hense my concern. The map is also very small, something that others have commented on as well. I could go into detail on this, but you seem to be aware of the pros and cons of this already.
Go try StarBow on the Arcade. TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=440661
The_Templar
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
your Country52797 Posts
September 02 2011 21:31 GMT
#57
I guess I'll make my awesome team map then...
BTW, can I submit 2 maps?
Moderatorshe/her
TL+ Member
The_Templar
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
your Country52797 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-02 23:07:03
September 02 2011 23:05 GMT
#58
On September 02 2011 08:26 lawol wrote:
This seems like a pretty cool concept, and some of the maps are looking awesome lol ;o Anyway I'm giving the comp a go myself, here is the top down look so far:

[image loading]

Some map analyser pics:
http://i.imgur.com/Cww8x.png
http://i.imgur.com/w8A0U.png

I've already started texturing and decorating, but thats mainly because I'm still new to the editor and am just trying to figure out how to get a nice natural look to things.

I had some difficulty with the symmetry, I think the main and natural might be classed as such - is it? :o Any other feedback is welcome! lol

I like this.
My only concern is that the top main has three easy bases while the bottom has two.
Now onto creating my map!
Moderatorshe/her
TL+ Member
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
September 03 2011 12:19 GMT
#59
@ Zaphod Beeblebrox -- I took no offense at the humor you tried to use, nor at the fact that you tried to offer constructive criticism for my map. What irritates me is that you would tell a guy on his fourth post and second map that he is lacking a skill set when you know neither his intention nor train of thought. Further, I am not a fan of when people seem to be self contradictory as when you seem to be open minded about challenging mappers to explore new ideas and then you don't like the new ideas being offered.

I get that you do not like the map decisions I made. I disagree that matches are going to devolve into coin flips at close positions (you will be scouting early). I also disagree that the map is small, it is 160x160 playable -- this makes it *cramped* for 7 players, not small. Maybe this is what you mean, but I think the map starts to get way to big for mid/far positions if I make the map much bigger given the fact that the whole thing is one massive maze. If you look at the analyzer pics of this map, you will see how much a winding route can add to the ground distance. Having everything open up slightly (going to 250x250 like FenX mentioned would really only make the passageways slightly more open if I were to make every base and expansion "normal size") just to be more friendly to what people are used to I don't think is worth making the map less playable which I do think making the map too big would do. Maybe this map won't make it into any tournaments, but in the tests I have done so far, 1v1 and 7ffa are very fun.

You will need to sim city all of your buildings around the ramps. You will need to scout very early with two workers. You may need to add in a number of defensive structures. In other words, you will need to play differently to be successful on this map. I do not think that this fact takes away anything from the game especially as everyone is always looking for the next new way to play -- this map forces that. You might wind up not liking the way you need to play this map but that is not my problem, my problem is challenging the norm which I think my map does quite nicely without being imbalanced.

Don't worry, I will be publishing it soon and you can try it out to see what does/doesn't happen with the game play. (btw, evo chambers make great simcity buildings for zerg.)
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Profile Joined December 2010
Denmark697 Posts
September 03 2011 13:04 GMT
#60
Dude relax. I am merely sharing a concern I have about your map, not trying to attack it. The thing that worries me is that mains with large/secondary entrances have been tried before, and it never seems to work. If your map can work with a different metagame, then my worries are wrong ofc, but there is no denying that your map will need a lot of work to eliminate the imbalances this metagame brings. (on my first post I didn't realise that two entrances were a major part of the map design so I tried to advise against it)

Also for me being hypocritical - I try to point out things that may or may not work in the maps. In your case I saw mains with two entrances, and this immediately made the alarm bells ring so I felt I had to point this out strongly. Being open minded is not the same as blindly ignoring possible faults (and I do mean possible, your idea might work if the map is tuned to it).
Go try StarBow on the Arcade. TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=440661
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 15m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
JuggernautJason77
CosmosSc2 67
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 11186
Calm 2314
Artosis 543
Mini 355
Soulkey 147
UpATreeSC 90
Aegong 88
NaDa 18
Dota 2
PGG 83
monkeys_forever67
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu383
Khaldor147
Other Games
Grubby1627
ScreaM1373
shahzam516
C9.Mang0204
ToD186
Skadoodle171
Maynarde129
Trikslyr48
fpsfer 3
summit1g0
Organizations
Counter-Strike
PGL452
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 53
• davetesta39
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4144
Other Games
• imaqtpie1746
• Scarra700
• Shiphtur231
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
15m
Wardi Open
12h 15m
Wardi Open
15h 45m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 1h
Replay Cast
1d 11h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
OSC
2 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Online Event
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
5 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.