|
Mapping Challenge #1 Asymmetric Maps
August 17th - September 18t
Challenger: FlopTurnReaver
Challenge: Make a map that is everything else but mirrored or symmetric in any way but still is as balanced as possible.
Rules: Any number of spawnpoints and any overall map size allowed. Focus is on unique layouts and balanced gameplay, but well placed doodads and good texturing is a nice and welcome addition.
No rotationaly symmetry or axial symmetry is allowed. That incompasses partly mirrored maps, e.g. a rotational 3 player map that is mirrored on 60° axis that meet in the map's centre.
+ Show Spoiler [What we are looking for] +We are looking for maps that offer different situations and ask the players for specific descisions in relation to their position on the map. Maps should provide equal chances to have fun and win the game.
This is not about visuals, but nobody really enjoys playing completely untextured maps.
Map submission: Submit your map by posting author name and map title (preferable EU and US), the map's overview (flat or angled) and if possible an analyzer image (summary) as well as the rush distances (nat2nat in numbers) in this thread until Sunday, September 18th 12pm CET
Judges: FlopTurnReaver, Monitor, Samro225am, WniO
Feel free to post work in progress shots to get feedback or just to show off  (using the spoiler tags)
We invite everyone to play these maps and provide feedback.
Have fun!
+ Show Spoiler [What is the Mapping Challenge?] +
The Mapping Challenge is a series of monthly mapping events to try out new things in melee mapping.
The tournament is complementary to other mapping related organizations or tournaments like MotM and want to generate discourse on mapping and wants to emphasize more experiemental approaches.
The Mapping Challenge wants to make the better and more experienced map makers share their ideas and show intersting, but probably less polished stuff, create discussions and allow new, talented guys with less experience to join in the competition with one great idea and step up their mapping skills.
Maybe one of us stumbles over something that later shows to be a great idea and can be developed into a really good map.
Map makers challenge the community to build a map following a specific rule and have to provide a map, too. Together with a changing board of judges the challenger has to award "special prices" and a commentary to every map submitted.
While the person challenging has to submit a map, judges are allowed to do so. We will not "judge" about the best map overall, but about the success of the individual concept.
This is all about experimenting and discussing map making.
|
Awww yeah. gl guys, should be fun.
|
I may want in. Looks fun.
|
Here´s an early concept:
Overview:+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer:+ Show Spoiler +
3 player map with wildly different main/nat setups.
10 o´clock is Bel´Shir Beach-like with same level main & nat with a high ground pod @ main choke.
2 o´clock is a standard main/nat with a Tal´Darim style 3rd.
8 o´clock has a Crevasse-like setup with a very difficult 3rd, but close to gold and the expo behind it.
I wonder if it is at all possible to balance this concept to a playable state, but I will continue to nudge stuff around and get as close to balanced as possible.
edit: I need to increase distance between 10 o´clock and 8 o´clock - not yet published
|
Wow johanez, that looks pretty damn good and balanced. Yet another reason why i think your the best mapper we've got. I think balance wise as long as the chokes around the map and nat are the same per base, it helps be balanced as each alternate base in your map can do a fairly safe fast expo. The only gripe i have is with the thirds location for the top right base - regardless of where your opponent spawns the third is always in the way or on the path to the main especially if you think of air travel like drops ( ie opponents at the top left or, bottem bases will have easy access to the third base for the top right base.)
|
This sounds great. I can't wait to see what everyone comes up with.
|
|
|
On August 18 2011 19:29 hobbidude wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Wow johanez, that looks pretty damn good and balanced. Yet another reason why i think your the best mapper we've got. I think balance wise as long as the chokes around the map and nat are the same per base, it helps be balanced as each alternate base in your map can do a fairly safe fast expo. The only gripe i have is with the thirds location for the top right base - regardless of where your opponent spawns the third is always in the way or on the path to the main especially if you think of air travel like drops ( ie opponents at the top left or, bottem bases will have easy access to the third base for the top right base.)
He he, thanks Hobbidude, but I have yet to create a successful map 
Btw, did I tell u I implemented ur landing light idea on Green Harvest? Pretty cool
On August 19 2011 06:28 Barrin wrote:If I spawned at 2 and my opponent at 10 I would have a huge bananagrin if he didn't kill me early. Late-game potential of the 10 o'clock position is almost non existent in that situation I was *almost* digging it until I realized you could spawn at 10 :D
Thanks Barrin, that´s exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for, but u forgot to mention what should be done to make 10 o´clock work late game. Do you mean easier access to bases beyond 3rd?
|
I think the main problem is that you can contain the 10 o'clock position really easily from the 2 o'clocks third. This gives you a free gold and 7 bases total against 6 (of which you could rather easily cut off 3).
If you increase the distance from 10 to 8 you could probably make sure that you can acces the 3 natural bases of the 8 position more easily without getting cut off which gives you at least 6 bases to work with.
I would personally try to increase the middle space to make these sorts of contains more difficult. (I also just like wide open maps so I'm biased )
|
Awesome, cant wait to see what people come up with.
|
|
|
I'm not sure I like that map.
First off - the mains are basically just copy-pasted from Temple/Bel'Shir/Crevasse.
Secondly - attack paths are too limited and contains seem like thay are a bit too easy (exept against 2 o'clock). Everything seems to funnel though the middle and a few tanks around the watchtower would lock down basically all movement by ground.
The more I look at this map - the more I think its scewed towards the 2... Easiest 3rd, easiest gold, and if player at 2 holds the middle he basically just wins.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 18 2011 18:56 Johanaz wrote:Here´s an early concept: Overview: + Show Spoiler +Analyzer: + Show Spoiler +3 player map with wildly different main/nat setups. 10 o´clock is Bel´Shir Beach-like with same level main & nat with a high ground pod @ main choke. 2 o´clock is a standard main/nat with a Tal´Darim style 3rd. 8 o´clock has a Crevasse-like setup with a very difficult 3rd, but close to gold and the expo behind it. I wonder if it is at all possible to balance this concept to a playable state, but I will continue to nudge stuff around and get as close to balanced as possible. edit: I need to increase distance between 10 o´clock and 8 o´clock - not yet published
aside from what the others have said about the 2, I was certain the 5:30/6 was a main until I saw the map analyzer, and Im not a big fan of the watchtower, it should be much less centrered to emphazize the non-symmetric theme. as it is it kind of feels symmetric with itself if you know what I mean, also the way I see it holding the watchtower is super important in every spawning position as it is.
|
Hi TL, this is my first post in the TL sc2 custom maps forum.
Here is an asymmetric map I have been working on. it's still a work in progress and I'll be working on it for a while to try to make it more balanced.
+ Show Spoiler [overview] +
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer rush distances] +
It's a three player map partly based on Metalopolis. The map should play very different depending on where the players spawn.
for a game between 8 and 5 o'clock, the map should play like metalopolis close air game.
for a game between 1 and 5 o'clock, the map should play a bit like scrap station, with a long rush distance that shortens dramatically when the rocks are destroyed.
for a game between 8 and 1 o'clock, the map should play like metalopolis cross spawns game
I have a few concerns right now, especially about the vulnerability and number of expansions of the 8 o'clock spawn compared to the other spawning locations.
If you want to play this map, it is published under the name "Galactic HQ" on the NA server.
edit: Galactic HQ now has it's own map thread, please direct any feedback or comments you might have there. Thanks!
|
On August 22 2011 12:07 Namrufus wrote:
Hi TL, this is my first post in the TL sc2 custom maps forum.
Here is an asymmetric map I have been working on. it's still a work in progress and I'll be working on it for a while to try to make it more balanced.
If you want to play this map, it is published under the name "Galactic HQ" on the NA server.
there is some really interesting stuff going on here I think, but you should try to get better balanced expansions layouts done somehow. the 10 has four bases secured rather easily, while the other two mains have to go longer pathes to get access.
do you think it balances out, because the two bases in south east can expand into the other main base and are close to the gold?
@johanaz: the base at 11 is to weak! third are impossible, cause you have to move out early on to take one
|
I like this map - the expanding seems logical, the spawns seem rather balanced untill late game, and the use of rocks are quite creative.
Only thing I don't like is the similarity with Metalopolis. Start working on making this map more unique.
|
On August 22 2011 12:07 Namrufus wrote:Hi TL, this is my first post in the TL sc2 custom maps forum. Here is an asymmetric map I have been working on. it's still a work in progress and I'll be working on it for a while to try to make it more balanced. + Show Spoiler [overview] ++ Show Spoiler [analyzer summary] ++ Show Spoiler [analyzer rush distances] +It's a three player map partly based on Metalopolis. The map should play very different depending on where the players spawn. for a game between 8 and 5 o'clock, the map should play like metalopolis close air game. for a game between 1 and 5 o'clock, the map should play a bit like scrap station, with a long rush distance that shortens dramatically when the rocks are destroyed. for a game between 8 and 1 o'clock, the map should play like metalopolis cross spawns game I have a few concerns right now, especially about the vulnerability and number of expansions of the 8 o'clock spawn compared to the other spawning locations. If you want to play this map, it is published under the name "Galactic HQ" on the NA server.
5 o' clock has no real way of expanding away from 1 o' clock after the rocks are destroyed.
Also I don't know the real sizes, but it looks like there are a ton of chokes.
|
Thanks for the feedback!
@Samro225am:
do you think it balances out, because the two bases in south east can expand into the other main base and are close to the gold?
yeah that was the general idea, I gave the west spawn a inbase half-expansion and an island to make up for the fact that there are simply less expansions on the west side of the map (I can't really put another base after 8's 4th because that would favor the 1 o'clock player in games between 1 o'clock and 5 o'clock). This is how I am hoping the map will work:
+ Show Spoiler +
In the late game either of the east players will be able to protect 5-6 bases by defending along the blue line. the west player will be able to protect 4.5-5.5 bases by defending along the red line.
that said, I do see that the east player can expand to four bases quickly, while the west players must break a rock to get to their fourths... maybe I could block 10's 4th with a rock?
@Zaphod Beeblebrox:
Only thing I don't like is the similarity with Metalopolis. Start working on making this map more unique.
The look I was aiming for was a kind of cleaner version of metalopolis with some xel-naga themed highlights. idk what I could do to differentiate it more from the original, I might add a few more protoss-y doodads.
@Baseic:
5 o' clock has no real way of expanding away from 1 o' clock after the rocks are destroyed.
This is one of my thoughts as well. I will probably add an expansion on the path between the 5 and 10 o'clock mains, though this won't really solve the problem completely... As for the map size, the path widths are comparable in size to metalopolis's.
|
There is one general region that has the effect of just making this map seem like a copy (even though its probably an improvement) of metal - the gold bases. If you can twist those so they have another shape, and the watchtower platform is changed a bit too, I think it would seem more unique.
|
there is a problem with your setup. one player just has to occupy so much more space, thin out his forces due to a narrow path, etc.
also the 11o'clock is played pretty much exactly like meta + the relative save island.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GHBCu.jpg)
|
@Zaphod & Samro: I agree that the layout will have to be changed somehow. the map looks a lot more similar to metalopolis than I had intended when I first started on it... I'm going to have to give this some more thought...
|
your Country52797 Posts
I figured we'd see mostly 3 player maps here...
|
still we need to see more things!
I'd love to see a few two player maps like wnio's or like iGrok's five player map tbh. crazy!
|
On August 25 2011 18:44 TehTemplar wrote:
I figured we'd see mostly 3 player maps here...
Strange, I thought we'd mostly see 2 player maps since there are kinda easier to do ^^
|
On August 25 2011 21:53 Ragoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 18:44 TehTemplar wrote:
I figured we'd see mostly 3 player maps here... Strange, I thought we'd mostly see 2 player maps since there are kinda easier to do ^^
Actually, I think that 3 player asymmetric maps might be the easiest to make, or at least the easiest to balance. If we assume that we give each spawn a vaguely similar main/nat/third, then for a three player map we only need to add the main/nat/third for each player (in different asymmetric positions or whatever), which gives us twelve total bases: the map is already mostly done.
For a two-player map the map maker can add the similar main/nat/third, but this leaves half or more of the map to be picked from all possible asymmetric configurations. Without mirroring, there is even less "framework" to guide the map maker.
For a map with more than 3-5 spawns, you start to run out of room for the spawns and it easy to create with a map with wildly different matches like BGH, or all of the spawns in a big ring around an empty middle, which really isn't that asymmetric at all.
|
Assymetric map is a good opportunity to make a 3 players map, it would actually be harder to make a symetric 3p map.
Anyway I'm going for 3p too, already shown an earlier version in the other topic, i continued working on it and started to play with the aesthetics :
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IpI8Y.jpg) I removed the rocks blocking some of the gas geyzers and made some minor adjustements to equalize rush distances. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vEawI.jpg) Also the plains between the 2 southern towers has many randomly placed LoS blockers.
|
On August 26 2011 01:59 fenX wrote:Assymetric map is a good opportunity to make a 3 players map, it would actually be harder to make a symetric 3p map. Anyway I'm going for 3p too, already shown an earlier version in the other topic, i continued working on it and started to play with the aesthetics : + Show Spoiler +I removed the rocks blocking some of the gas geyzers and made some minor adjustements to equalize rush distances. Also the plains between the 2 southern towers has many randomly placed LoS blockers.
A very neat map. Cool aesthetics, too! =D
However, a few points I would like to draw attention to (good and bad):
The third for the 3 o'clock position looks easy harassed with blink or siege tanks... there is a very attractive third on the other side of the nat, too, so this probably isn't very much of a problem, but perhaps something to look at.
A match between the 3 and 11 o'clock positions looks well balanced except that the gold is much more accessible to the 11 o'clock player and the 3 o'clock would have to break the rocks or take the southern island as a fifth. While these are fine options, a gold is obviously preferable and could turn the tide of the game just based on expansion paths.
Why are there rocks blocking one gold but not the other? (In fact the rocks by the other gold make it easier to hold...) There may be a good reason for this that I'm not seeing, but it seems to always give an advantage to the 11 o'clock player (especially against 3 o'clock players as discussed earlier).
The 6 o'clock player could take 5 bases (main, nat, third, fourth, gold) and then would only need to hold the one choke in front of the gold. I realize that the rocks could be broken to allow attack paths, but if the player holds the watch towers, they will see it coming and could flank the opposing army and get an incredible surround easily.
Overall, the expansions setups are nice as each spawn has a quite obvious 4 bases to go to, but I feel like the 3 o'clock position will always be at a disadvantage. A match between the 11 o'clock and 6 o'clock looks very well balanced for a macro game, but I think the one choke to hold all 5 bases for the 6 o'clock player looks a little to strong.
Now I realize that it sounds like I'm bashing really hard on your map, which was not my intention. This map is very good for a non-symmetrical map. A good layout, besides being a little too choky in my opinion. The map is very cool, and I can't wait to see the finished product. =D
|
What happened to gas covered with rocks?
|
On August 26 2011 03:33 RumbleBadger wrote:
The third for the 3 o'clock position looks easy harassed with blink or siege tanks... there is a very attractive third on the other side of the nat, too, so this probably isn't very much of a problem, but perhaps something to look at.
Yeah I noticed that too just a few minutes after I wrote my post v_v"
Already made a change, it's still in siege range for both sides, so it's more about race imbalance than map positionnal. And there are two possible 3rd for each spawn, so I don't think it can be game breaking.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 26 2011 03:33 RumbleBadger wrote:
A match between the 3 and 11 o'clock positions looks well balanced except that the gold is much more accessible to the 11 o'clock player and the 3 o'clock would have to break the rocks or take the southern island as a fifth. While these are fine options, a gold is obviously preferable and could turn the tide of the game just based on expansion paths.
Why are there rocks blocking one gold but not the other? (In fact the rocks by the other gold make it easier to hold...) There may be a good reason for this that I'm not seeing, but it seems to always give an advantage to the 11 o'clock player (especially against 3 o'clock players as discussed earlier).
I think the xelnaga towers and the rocks leaving only one path make the south gold easier to hold, also the cliff behind it is in 6' territory and is easier to defend than the north gold. Also in north vs east you can take a sneaky ninja expand on the south gold, you can scout north gold more easily, there are 3 paths to it.
On August 26 2011 03:33 RumbleBadger wrote:The 6 o'clock player could take 5 bases (main, nat, third, fourth, gold) and then would only need to hold the one choke in front of the gold. I realize that the rocks could be broken to allow attack paths, but if the player holds the watch towers, they will see it coming and could flank the opposing army and get an incredible surround easily.
That's also the reason why south gold has rocks. Rocks to protect, so rocks to block the gold too.
But I see your point and I don't really like that choke either, maybe I should consider redoing all the center, remove the 2 golds and replace the 2 south towers with a single one there.
On August 26 2011 03:51 Fearlezz wrote:What happened to gas covered with rocks?
I thought that this kind of map is already quite unusual and hard to understand for the players, rocks gas was adding a bit too much to the originality, I'll use that maybe on a future map.
|
Alright, I've worked out a layout for my map. I have placed resources and spawn points, but I have not done any texturing (well, I dyed each height level a color for viewing purposes, but no actual texture work).
So here it is:
+ Show Spoiler [Overview/Angled] +Top level is tan tile texture, middle is grass, bottom is dirt. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7C5nx.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sexj3.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer Summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [BasetoBase and NattoNat] +
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer Influence] +
+ Show Spoiler [Notes] +In general the map favors 4 base play as the first 3 expansions are pretty straightforward but the 5th base is usually harder (exception in a bottom left versus top left scenario in which the bottom player could expand into the bottom right main/nat). Taking the third base usually helps defend the nat (I will be tweaking to top spawns third/nat area to make it cater more to this style). LoSB will be put in places, just haven't done it yet. According to analyzer, the bottom right spawn has less influence over the third/fourth base. I realize this is true, but these bases are also fairly easy to defend, so I don't see too much of a problem unless I missed something stupid. In all possible combinations of spawns, the center of the map is essentially the center of the battlefield. Controlling this area is a high priority. And I think that's all. 
ALL feedback is welcome.
|
I'm starting to like the maps this challenge produce. there are issues ofc, but not horrible ones.
@RumbleBadger: Look at 7 o'clock a bit more. I'm concerned that siege drops on the high ground will be nasty to deal with. the 5 looks like a baaad position for zerg to spawn in. There is no way a zerg can expand away from his opponents without have complete map control - and even then it's hard.
@fenX: I like the layout, and the fact that it encourages 3 base play, but leaves big vulnerabilities for the 3rd base. I don't like the center tho. It seems like there are clear narrow push paths, and flanking or counterattacks are hard because these tactics require much longer paths. In my opinion the 3 needs to be redesigned slightly to make room for a more open center.
|
On August 27 2011 20:51 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I'm starting to like the maps this challenge produce. there are issues ofc, but not horrible ones.
@RumbleBadger: Look at 7 o'clock a bit more. I'm concerned that siege drops on the high ground will be nasty to deal with. the 5 looks like a baaad position for zerg to spawn in. There is no way a zerg can expand away from his opponents without have complete map control - and even then it's hard.
Sorry, I forgot to clarify that the high ground in between the nat/main will be unpathable. If you are referring to the high ground above the third... + Show Spoiler +well, here's the thing. As zerg, spawning in this position, I would expand behind mutas to get my third. This would let me easily deal with such drops. I'm not a toss player, so I don't really know what I would do in that case, but I would theorize that I would use an observer to get vision and then just attack it with spread stalkers. If the high ground is a bigger problem than I think it is, then I'll find a way to deal with it, but as of right now I think it's fine.
As for the 5 o'clock. I see what you mean in that the third/fourth are pre-decided and you have to expand towards the center, but to control the third/fourth all you have to do is control the one "choke" (it's pretty wide for a choke, which zerg likes in engagements) between the center and the third/fourth. Beyond this it would be hard to secure another expansion if fighting against the 7 o'clock position, but it's hard for the 7 o'clock position to get onto 5 bases, too. Also, a zerg should be able to effectively deny the fourth of the 7 o'clock position if they are playing well. Personally I don't think those expansions are too difficult to hold, so for now I don't think I'll make any changes to that area.
And while it sounds like I'm just denying everything you say, I really do appreciate the advice as it forces me to think about my map in new ways and reinforce my decisions in my mind.
|
I just saw in the map analyser that the high grounds between main and nat (at 7) are pathable by cliffwalk - so I assume that units can drop on them (maybe this is just an old version). I have no problem with the 3rd base. When you take this base you should have plenty of options to stop a drop on the high ground.
The problem with the 5 is not the defendability of the chokes or bases. The problem is that the zerg has to play with direct pushing and tacling the enemy army directly. This inherently leaves zerg at a disadvantage as the zerg army relies more on mobility and counterattacks.
A terran or protoss could simply push directly into the closest zerg base, besiege it and have no fear whatsoever of expanding two or three times.
|
On August 28 2011 05:48 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I just saw in the map analyser that the high grounds between main and nat (at 7) are pathable by cliffwalk - so I assume that units can drop on them (maybe this is just an old version). I have no problem with the 3rd base. When you take this base you should have plenty of options to stop a drop on the high ground.
Yeah, I just haven't edited the pathing to stop that yet. Sorry for the confusion.
Although, do you think I should leave one open and then have a ramp up to it (like Bel'Shir Beach)? Or just leave it? It might even out the balance of not having a ramp... IDK.
On August 28 2011 05:48 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
The problem with the 5 is not the defendability of the chokes or bases. The problem is that the zerg has to play with direct pushing and tacling the enemy army directly. This inherently leaves zerg at a disadvantage as the zerg army relies more on mobility and counterattacks.
A terran or protoss could simply push directly into the closest zerg base, besiege it and have no fear whatsoever of expanding two or three times.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Unfortunately that's kind of the design of the map. In all spawns you kinda half to push towards the center (top excepted) while expanding. And at this point I don't really know what to do to fix it... maybe make one of the bases a high ground and spread them out a little? Not sure... I'll play around some.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
|
Ok gents, I thought this looked like fun so I slapped together something that I hope will at the very least get a "WTF?!" This map draws inspiration from classic Broodwar maps like Cauldron, Expedition, and The Hunters. It is quite asymmetrical and it is a ***seven player map***.
SEVEN PLAYER MAP???
seven player map...
SeVeN pLaYeR mAp !1!
After all, what could be more aysmmetrical than a seven player map?
I present to you, "Lands of Twisted Pleasure".
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4fKe6.jpg) The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA.
This is still a bit of a work in progress, but currently this is the layout. This map hopes to find its balance in its imbalance, much like the paradigm of three distinct races. I think the map's strongest point toward balance is by being somewhat horrible for each race in its own special way. Here's some analyzer to show the wildly varying games that will be played on this map:
+ Show Spoiler +
And yes it is a square. 160x160 BW style ftw.
Oh and NO Xel'Naga towers. NO gold bases. NO rich vespene. NO rocks. NO line of sight blockers. Just Straight Up War.
|
On August 30 2011 21:52 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Ok gents, I thought this looked like fun so I slapped together something that I hope will at the very least get a "WTF?!" This map draws inspiration from classic Broodwar maps like Cauldron, Expedition, and The Hunters. It is quite asymmetrical and it is a ***seven player map***. SEVEN PLAYER MAP??? seven player map... SeVeN pLaYeR mAp !1! After all, what could be more aysmmetrical than a seven player map? I present to you, "Lands of Twisted Pleasure". + Show Spoiler +The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA. This is still a bit of a work in progress, but currently this is the layout. This map hopes to find its balance in its imbalance, much like the paradigm of three distinct races. I think the map's strongest point toward balance is by being somewhat horrible for each race in its own special way. Here's some analyzer to show the wildly varying games that will be played on this map: + Show Spoiler +And yes it is a square. 160x160 BW style ftw. Oh and NO Xel'Naga towers. NO gold bases. NO rich vespene. NO rocks. NO line of sight blockers. Just Straight Up War.
You are crazy. Holy cow. I like don't even know where to begin when trying to analyze that map. o.o
And actually, I think it will be fairly balanced. There will never be a lack for expansion options, and every base seems to have 2 naturals. Scouting will be a huge pain in that batookie. '_' I mean, I won't even know where my opponent is until midgame. I might even do 2 hatches before I build a pool on this map. xD
Still, I'm really excited to see how this turns out.
|
Updated my map :
+ Show Spoiler [View] +
Changes around north gold : removed the rocks on the ramp to the left and extended the cliff on the righ to allow mineral harass to make it harder to hold for 11 in 3 vs 11. Added a hole to the south so it won't be too much harder to defend compared to the other gold in 6' vs 11' in late game.
Changes around the middle plains : reworked the positionning of rocks, holes, towers and ramps in that area to make it more open and harder to defend on 5 bases for 6'.
Not sure yet it's 100% balanced for all matchups but I think it's better.
Rush distances are now :
- 11 vs 3 : 162 (main-main ground) 121 (main-main air) 120 (nat-nat ground)
- 11 vs 6 : 158 (main-main ground) 142 (main-main air) 119 (nat-nat ground)
- 3 vs 6 : 166 (main-main ground) 64 (main-main air) 132 (nat-nat ground)
On August 30 2011 21:52 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA. This is still a bit of a work in progress, but currently this is the layout. This map hopes to find its balance in its imbalance, much like the paradigm of three distinct races. I think the map's strongest point toward balance is by being somewhat horrible for each race in its own special way.
Players gonna hate you so much for that map you should hire a bodyguard. Protoss and terrans don't have enough room for their buildings, paths are so narrow zergs don't have room to move an army.
This concept could be fun if you do it on a 250x250 so you can have decent sizes for main bases and room for more open areas and real expansions (not thoses 4 minerals no gas). Also use wider ramps when it's not on possible mains, and prevent spawning in the closest positions, a rush distance of 73 main to main is ridiculously low.
|
On August 31 2011 04:08 fenX wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Updated my map : ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8y9Qp.jpg) Changes around north gold : removed the rocks on the ramp to the left and extended the cliff on the righ to allow mineral harass to make it harder to hold for 11 in 3 vs 11. Added a hole to the south so it won't be too much harder to defend compared to the other gold in 6' vs 11' in late game. Changes around the middle plains : reworked the positionning of rocks, holes, towers and ramps in that area to make it more open and harder to defend on 5 bases for 6'. Not sure yet it's 100% balanced for all matchups but I think it's better. Rush distances are now : - 11 vs 3 : 162 (main-main ground) 121 (main-main air) 120 (nat-nat ground) - 11 vs 6 : 158 (main-main ground) 142 (main-main air) 119 (nat-nat ground) - 3 vs 6 : 166 (main-main ground) 64 (main-main air) 132 (nat-nat ground)
Loving it so far, with a couple of more tweaks I could see this used in tournaments!
I got a minor suggestion; if I were you I'd play with the positioning of the bottom two Xel'Naga towers a bit.
As things are at the moment, when you look at the 11 vs 6 position, player spawning at 11 has a slight advantage in vision when they hold their tower since they have total sight over both main attack routes. The player spawning at 6 holding their XNT sees only 3/4 of the middle and 11 can sneak an army by to the left without 6 noticing. The opposite is not true.
I would suggest moving the middle XNT a bit to W or NW so 11 also only sees 3/4 of the middle attack path. Both towers would then provide a big advantage if held but wouldn't make you 100% secure and sure that you'll spot an attack if the enemy is careful enough to avoid XNT vision.
The only other thing I could see adding a bit more variety is making 11 vs 6 a bit more reaper scout friendly. You could achieve that by adding just a small part of pathable cliff right next to rocks between 3's third and 6's third. You would only need to modify one or two hexes there and making a small part of the cliff below 6's third's bottom gas pathable. for that and I think it would make a nice alternative reaper scouting path. And now that I took a better look at it, it would also apply to the 3 vs 6 position so double win right there.
And yeah, I'm a sucker for LOS blockers in mains for hiding tech and drops and it would suit the map a lot since it has somewhat of a marshland theme. I know, I know, the mains are quite small, so just ignore this and attribute it to my wishful thinking and wanting to unnecessary complicate things ^^
Hope you find the suggestions helpful.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On August 30 2011 21:52 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:Ok gents, I thought this looked like fun so I slapped together something that I hope will at the very least get a "WTF?!" This map draws inspiration from classic Broodwar maps like Cauldron, Expedition, and The Hunters. It is quite asymmetrical and it is a ***seven player map***. SEVEN PLAYER MAP??? seven player map... SeVeN pLaYeR mAp !1! After all, what could be more aysmmetrical than a seven player map? I present to you, "Lands of Twisted Pleasure". + Show Spoiler +The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA. This is still a bit of a work in progress, but currently this is the layout. This map hopes to find its balance in its imbalance, much like the paradigm of three distinct races. I think the map's strongest point toward balance is by being somewhat horrible for each race in its own special way. Here's some analyzer to show the wildly varying games that will be played on this map: + Show Spoiler +And yes it is a square. 160x160 BW style ftw. Oh and NO Xel'Naga towers. NO gold bases. NO rich vespene. NO rocks. NO line of sight blockers. Just Straight Up War.
HOLY-
Ok. Next weekend or the one after...
I UNLEASH THE THUNDER!!! *rumble rumble* Quiet up there!!!
|
On August 31 2011 06:07 Fearlezz wrote:
As things are at the moment, when you look at the 11 vs 6 position, player spawning at 11 has a slight advantage in vision when they hold their tower since they have total sight over both main attack routes. The player spawning at 6 holding their XNT sees only 3/4 of the middle and 11 can sneak an army by to the left without 6 noticing. The opposite is not true.
That doesn't show in the analyzer pics but XNT has reduced sight range (18 instead of 22, analyzer show the regular 22), 11's XNT doesn't see the left destructible rocks and there's a small space out of range (about 3-4 cells) to sneak a small group of units from 6' to the north gold.
Also with 11's and 3's XNT you have vision to some part of the higher ground near the nat', it would help the attacker on his way there, 6's XNT range stops at the bottom of the ramp, so maybe it help less defending 6' but also help less attacking.
On August 31 2011 06:07 Fearlezz wrote:The only other thing I could see adding a bit more variety is making 11 vs 6 a bit more reaper scout friendly. You could achieve that by adding just a small part of pathable cliff right next to rocks between 3's third and 6's third. You would only need to modify one or two hexes there and making a small part of the cliff below 6's third's bottom gas pathable. for that and I think it would make a nice alternative reaper scouting path. And now that I took a better look at it, it would also apply to the 3 vs 6 position so double win right there.
I'm made it unpathable because I was worried about tanks drops there, but if it's not in range to siege the main building I guess it's acceptable, would create a little potential vulnerability to 6' as it's seems to be the easier to defend now.
On August 31 2011 06:07 Fearlezz wrote:And yeah, I'm a sucker for LOS blockers in mains for hiding tech and drops and it would suit the map a lot since it has somewhat of a marshland theme. I know, I know, the mains are quite small, so just ignore this and attribute it to my wishful thinking and wanting to unnecessary complicate things ^^
There already a ton of LoSB in the lower ground, won't that be too much of those ? I like the idea however, maybe I'll do it if it fits the aesthetics, maybe not for all bases.
|
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.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9iIBu.jpg)
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
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] +
+ Show Spoiler [Angled] +
By the way, I'll probably be calling this map Stepway...
|
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.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
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]](http://i.imgur.com/nD1Vk.jpg)
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 +
|
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]](http://i.imgur.com/7jE6z.png)
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 +
Criticism is highly desired (and needed), because I don't have friends to playtest my maps with.
|
@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.
|
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: GeostationaryPlayable 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 +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.
|
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: GeostationaryPlayable 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 +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
|
i am really looking forward to how this turns out
i always loved asymetrical maps
|
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]](http://i.imgur.com/Zeu37.jpg)
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
|
your Country52797 Posts
Can I make a team map?
If so, what are the requirements?
|
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.
|
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.
|
your Country52797 Posts
I guess I'll make my awesome team map then...
BTW, can I submit 2 maps?
|
your Country52797 Posts
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: Some map analyser pics: http://i.imgur.com/Cww8x.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/w8A0U.pngI'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!
|
@ 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.)
|
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).
|
your Country52797 Posts
With my 666th post I will submit my ultimate map.
The most crazy stuff about it.
+ Show Spoiler +
The first side:
+ Show Spoiler +-3 players
-1 player has a protected expansion that can be sieged when rocks are broken.
-1 player has a very standard, Shattered Temple-like Main-Nat-Third Setup.
-1 player has a completely crazy main setup, with the minerals against the cliff with 2 ramps nearby. One ramp can be walled against melee units with just 1 3x3 structure, while the other has a 4x4 space. The natural is directly below that with 2 entrances+ the third, which has rocks that both block it and block an attack path.
The other side:
+ Show Spoiler +-4 players
-1 player has a protected expansion behind his minerals.
-1 player has a single large ramp near him leading into the natural.
-1 player has a person on either side of him, and therefore has a lower expansion possibility but more protection.
-1 player has 2 ramps, both leading out into natural expansions. 1 is the main natural, and the other is an isolated natural with a cliffable spot blocked off by rocks.
Contested bases:
+ Show Spoiler +There are 7 contested expansions, 4 closer to the team with 4 players and 3 closer to the team with 3 players.
The middle:
+ Show Spoiler +The middle is where I outdid myself in comparison to my standards. It's a beautiful blend between the terrain from both sides+Char Rock. There are 2 gold metalopolis-style bases with a ramp leading into a watchtower placed similarly to the one in Abyssal.
Something that this map shows about me:
+ Show Spoiler +I am a boss with rocks and I love using them ^.^
THE MAP:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Mr43I.jpg) The black streaks show where the start locations are.
gg.
+ Show Spoiler +
Edit: Forgot a few things.
My goal with this map:
+ Show Spoiler +My goal was to try to create the most balanced imbalanced map with uneven amounts of players/bases. I also set out to create a map with more, weaker players on one of the teams.
My history with positionally imbalanced maps (BORING DON'T READ) :
+ Show Spoiler +I started with the 7 player map Death Caves (Published on NA, FFA map). The map was a major success, with one game played on it that lasted 55 minutes because one guy turtled on the island for the last 15 minutes. The map featured very similar mains, followed by wildly different natural-third setups with contested thirds and watchtowers outside of everyone's bases.
Then, one day, I drew maps for fun, and I came up with the 2 player map The HunT. The map had a good concept, but the execution was so bad that I scrapped it.
Later, I came up with the map Veed Acthas (Published on NA, FFA map). This map had very standard naturals but crazy mains (1 exception). It too was a major success, with me winning the only game ever played on it because I got killed early on, lifted to the center island, and massed air units and a-moved.
With my sights then set on 1v1 maps, I came up with the map Quadruple Territories (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which had slightly different main-nat setups, similar thirds, and a symmetrical center.
I felt disoriented, as my Imbamaps, as I knew them, were not improving along with my other maps. I made Lava Magnus (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which was a 3 player map intended for this competition, but I saw everyone else was doing the same thing, and set my sights on a team map. The results are seen here today.
|
I am a relax.
I am merely explaining what irked me about your manner, and seperately, offering counterpoint to your criticism showing what reasoning I had in allowing the things you object to in my map, and why I think those things taken together actually make the map work. You are still free to think those things may be a problem, but I would invite you to phrase it as such and wait to say things are a "no-go" until you've tried it out a few times.
I never said you were hypocritical, which is the condemning of a behavior of another while engaging in the same behavior with an air of impunity. I said I thought you were being self contradictory, or inconsistent if you will, in saying you wanted to see innovation and then shooting down the innovations you were seeing. I tried to phrase this as gently as possible while still relating the fact of my perception. This does not of course mean that you cannot be discerning about the innovations you see, but the majority of your comments have seemed to be criticism, so it seems inconsistent.
I'm willing to drop the "you said this so I said this" part of this discussion since it seems that everything has been laid out already and anything further would be redundant -- you were just saying this, I was just saying that; I think we're good now. If you still want to dicuss my map features, shoot.
I hope to do a few more tests and maybe a tweak or two and publish it this weekend. Then you can really tear into it.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 04 2011 06:46 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:I am a relax. I am merely explaining what irked me about your manner, and seperately, offering counterpoint to your criticism showing what reasoning I had in allowing the things you object to in my map, and why I think those things taken together actually make the map work. You are still free to think those things may be a problem, but I would invite you to phrase it as such and wait to say things are a "no-go" until you've tried it out a few times. I never said you were hypocritical, which is the condemning of a behavior of another while engaging in the same behavior with an air of impunity. I said I thought you were being self contradictory, or inconsistent if you will, in saying you wanted to see innovation and then shooting down the innovations you were seeing. I tried to phrase this as gently as possible while still relating the fact of my perception. This does not of course mean that you cannot be discerning about the innovations you see, but the majority of your comments have seemed to be criticism, so it seems inconsistent. I'm willing to drop the "you said this so I said this" part of this discussion since it seems that everything has been laid out already and anything further would be redundant -- you were just saying this, I was just saying that; I think we're good now. If you still want to dicuss my map features, shoot. I hope to do a few more tests and maybe a tweak or two and publish it this weekend. Then you can really tear into it.
It's almost as awesome as seven sins, don't worry
|
@ TehTemplar -- Funky stuff, friend. Pretty zany. Me likes. Am I correct in assuming the balance is drawn from the team of four being stuck on 2 bases longer than the team of three? It seems like the team of four will have 8 "safe"/"quick" bases while the team of 3 will have 9 "safe"/"quick" bases. Is that how this plays out for you?
|
Actually I would say the opposite - that map is good because its not crazy or zany or the like. It looks simply amazing and well thought out. Ofc a 3v4 map is never going to be used competively, but it just looks well balanced in every way.
First of, there really are no ways to cheese on this map. The top 3 players start on a virtual fort, and if they are not totally incompetent, any cheese is fought off easily. If you on the other hand decide to rush as 3 against 4 you should have your head examined.
Secondly the maps strongpoints seems very deliberate. The bottom team have a difficult time defending without a lot of units, but thats okay because they will have more units. On the other hand the top team has an easier time defending with tech units.
The only thing I see that needs attention is the 10-11 o'clock part of the map. With the main attack paths cutting this part of the map out, it seems hard to expand up there.
|
Is anyone else reading this thread thinking about Garden of War?
|
Good call, Sunrunner. I definately played me some Garden of War on Engage back in the day. The only question now is how to equate minerals and gas to gold and wood (dare I mention oil?) -- I'm sure someone out there has done this already. I think something would get lost in the translation though.
|
Hey guys! Just uploaded my entry to TL's website! Here's the link:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=263477
And here's an overview picture.
*Edit, you may have to R-Click and open image in a new tab/window to view properly. Not sure how to get them to fit, sorry. . .
*Final Submission*
+ Show Spoiler +
Please check out the post!
Thanks, and GL to everyone. All of the entries look great!
|
keep them coming. there are some really different approaches already. don't forget some texture polishing to avoid damaging our eyes
edit:
some wip comments before the final days:
Glexam:
please consider where you would position your army to secure a two base or a three base play and what that means regarding the control of bases. to me it looks as if the two players on the outside have to expand away and travel far to secure a third when up against the player at 1, but then gain access to too many bases easily.
also all your bases terrain and setup up first three bases is symmetrical (rotational and mirror).
lawol:
unsure about the way you use the backdoors. the player at 12 has to cross the whole map to defend the backdoor/rocks. maybe you consider changing your map somehow to make up for this imbalance ot change the backdoor setup here alltogether. i am unsure if the extra safe three base will make up for it really, but we will see!
Rumble Badger:
I do not like how the map layout develops not all all. no matter if you are on one, two, three or four bases, you army positiong will be very similar - and fourth influenece is quite a bit different for everyone- on the other hand getting a fifth is really hard. in 5 vs 7 the player at 7 has almost no chance to get a fifth while the 7 wins it all when going in a lategame while being same strenght until then.
dezi:
I'd love to see an influence image here
templar: you are crazy and your texturing makes my eyes hurt.
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
How is this goin to be judged?
|
the four judges are going to discuss all maps bases on images, analyzer and playing and will then comment on every map + give special prices for special stuff.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Umm, what if I can't get analyzer? :o
|
On September 04 2011 04:23 TehTemplar wrote:With my 666th post I will submit my ultimate map. The most crazy stuff about it.+ Show Spoiler +The first side:+ Show Spoiler +-3 players
-1 player has a protected expansion that can be sieged when rocks are broken.
-1 player has a very standard, Shattered Temple-like Main-Nat-Third Setup.
-1 player has a completely crazy main setup, with the minerals against the cliff with 2 ramps nearby. One ramp can be walled against melee units with just 1 3x3 structure, while the other has a 4x4 space. The natural is directly below that with 2 entrances+ the third, which has rocks that both block it and block an attack path. : + Show Spoiler +-4 players
-1 player has a protected expansion behind his minerals.
-1 player has a single large ramp near him leading into the natural.
-1 player has a person on either side of him, and therefore has a lower expansion possibility but more protection.
-1 player has 2 ramps, both leading out into natural expansions. 1 is the main natural, and the other is an isolated natural with a cliffable spot blocked off by rocks. : + Show Spoiler +There are 7 contested expansions, 4 closer to the team with 4 players and 3 closer to the team with 3 players. The middle is where I outdid myself in comparison to my standards. It's a beautiful blend between the terrain from both sides+Char Rock. There are 2 gold metalopolis-style bases with a ramp leading into a watchtower placed similarly to the one in Abyssal. I am a boss with rocks and I love using them ^.^ : + Show Spoiler +The black streaks show where the start locations are. gg. + Show Spoiler +Edit: Forgot a few things. My goal with this map: + Show Spoiler +My goal was to try to create the most balanced imbalanced map with uneven amounts of players/bases. I also set out to create a map with more, weaker players on one of the teams. I started with the 7 player map Death Caves (Published on NA, FFA map). The map was a major success, with one game played on it that lasted 55 minutes because one guy turtled on the island for the last 15 minutes. The map featured very similar mains, followed by wildly different natural-third setups with contested thirds and watchtowers outside of everyone's bases.
Then, one day, I drew maps for fun, and I came up with the 2 player map The HunT. The map had a good concept, but the execution was so bad that I scrapped it.
Later, I came up with the map Veed Acthas (Published on NA, FFA map). This map had very standard naturals but crazy mains (1 exception). It too was a major success, with me winning the only game ever played on it because I got killed early on, lifted to the center island, and massed air units and a-moved.
With my sights then set on 1v1 maps, I came up with the map Quadruple Territories (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which had slightly different main-nat setups, similar thirds, and a symmetrical center.
I felt disoriented, as my Imbamaps, as I knew them, were not improving along with my other maps. I made Lava Magnus (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which was a 3 player map intended for this competition, but I saw everyone else was doing the same thing, and set my sights on a team map. The results are seen here today.
Holy man this is epic! Until I read your goal though it seemed like it was supposed to be around equal skill 3v4 with the 3 side having more advantages, but it seems not.
Will probably play on this map a couple times with friends if we only have 7 people ^-^
|
working title is Folly Fields and here are some minor terrain changes top prevent to much siege tank power from the small middlegrounds and also contains. XWT was moved so that it does not see the ramp down to the expansion at 12.
i think the concept and expansion layout is quite clear.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PLJoE.jpg)
any comments? don't be shy! feel free to say anything. I won't judge your maps based on your judging of my map
|
hmm - I can't see what advantages the north position has over the south. The south position has an easy second base that is impossible to deny while the north position has a wide open natural. The third is a bit easier to take for the north position, but its still hard for me to see why I should not clearly prefer the south in every way.
I say the north position needs some love, otherwise its a solid map.
|
Heres the final version of my submission, its EU only right now so hope thats not a problem! I can send the file if needed.
Author name: lawol
Map title: Barren Wastes (EU only atm)
The map's overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Summary pic:
+ Show Spoiler +
Rush distances pics:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
your Country52797 Posts
templar: you are crazy and your texturing makes my eyes hurt.
I expected this exact response!
|
Just wondering if a summary of the maps in consideration by the judges could be added in list format to a spoiler in the OP.
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
Looks great! I'll be sure to play on this map.
|
|
|
Now we are seeing some real progress in the maps. A few final comments on the submissions:
@Namrufus - Looks awesome. The similarities with metalopolis are gone, the balance issues seems to be solved, and its basically impossible for me to say that any race or position should be overpowered on this map. One thing I do want to point out is that the top XN tower looks like it can barely see into the 2 o'clock main, and this could be an issue with 4 gates.
@fenX - The map is really interesting, and some serious thought is required from the players to figure out strategies for differnt spawns. It looks like it can be a bit annoying to defend the 4 o'clock on three bases, as the chokes are a bit wierdly placed. I don't know how the balance is on this spawn, but the other two positions are clearly well made, so I don't think it is a serious problem.
|
your Country52797 Posts
My map submission works, right?
|
no comments... (hides in fear of flames)
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 19 2011 01:38 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
no comments... (hides in fear of flames)
?
|
---
it would be nice we would have a small "final submission" to identify the last version, since many images look very work in progress!
---
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 19 2011 02:24 Samro225am wrote:
---
it would be nice we would have a small "final submission" to identify the last version, since many images look very work in progress!
---
The only change on mine is that there are no black streaks at the starting locations.
|
Edited my post to say *Final Submission*
Also, added the analyzer pics to this post so you don't need to click the link to the original map post.
GL
|
your Country52797 Posts
With my 777th post I shall make the final submission.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oDoHk.jpg)
The black streaks do not show up in game, they are there to show where the start locations are.
Man I hope that worked.
Some extra details:
On both teams, everyone has a different role. On the team of three, one player takes a very fast expansion, the player near two ramps holds the line, and the far right player secures the bottom area. On the team of 4, the top player can take a super easy expansion, the 2 players in the corner hold the front, and the right-side player secures the bottom area. It's sort of a divided battlefield that way, and that leads to the top right not being used .
On a funny note, I tested this with computers and the top right player would not expand at all, even though he had 590 or more minerals the whole time.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to program it so that I can make 3v4 games. The game will only let me have 3v3... Or FFA which is a really bad idea on this map ;D.
On September 14 2011 12:08 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2011 04:23 TehTemplar wrote:With my 666th post I will submit my ultimate map. The most crazy stuff about it.+ Show Spoiler +The first side:+ Show Spoiler +-3 players
-1 player has a protected expansion that can be sieged when rocks are broken.
-1 player has a very standard, Shattered Temple-like Main-Nat-Third Setup.
-1 player has a completely crazy main setup, with the minerals against the cliff with 2 ramps nearby. One ramp can be walled against melee units with just 1 3x3 structure, while the other has a 4x4 space. The natural is directly below that with 2 entrances+ the third, which has rocks that both block it and block an attack path. : + Show Spoiler +-4 players
-1 player has a protected expansion behind his minerals.
-1 player has a single large ramp near him leading into the natural.
-1 player has a person on either side of him, and therefore has a lower expansion possibility but more protection.
-1 player has 2 ramps, both leading out into natural expansions. 1 is the main natural, and the other is an isolated natural with a cliffable spot blocked off by rocks. : + Show Spoiler +There are 7 contested expansions, 4 closer to the team with 4 players and 3 closer to the team with 3 players. The middle is where I outdid myself in comparison to my standards. It's a beautiful blend between the terrain from both sides+Char Rock. There are 2 gold metalopolis-style bases with a ramp leading into a watchtower placed similarly to the one in Abyssal. I am a boss with rocks and I love using them ^.^ : + Show Spoiler +The black streaks show where the start locations are. gg. + Show Spoiler +Edit: Forgot a few things. My goal with this map: + Show Spoiler +My goal was to try to create the most balanced imbalanced map with uneven amounts of players/bases. I also set out to create a map with more, weaker players on one of the teams. I started with the 7 player map Death Caves (Published on NA, FFA map). The map was a major success, with one game played on it that lasted 55 minutes because one guy turtled on the island for the last 15 minutes. The map featured very similar mains, followed by wildly different natural-third setups with contested thirds and watchtowers outside of everyone's bases.
Then, one day, I drew maps for fun, and I came up with the 2 player map The HunT. The map had a good concept, but the execution was so bad that I scrapped it.
Later, I came up with the map Veed Acthas (Published on NA, FFA map). This map had very standard naturals but crazy mains (1 exception). It too was a major success, with me winning the only game ever played on it because I got killed early on, lifted to the center island, and massed air units and a-moved.
With my sights then set on 1v1 maps, I came up with the map Quadruple Territories (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which had slightly different main-nat setups, similar thirds, and a symmetrical center.
I felt disoriented, as my Imbamaps, as I knew them, were not improving along with my other maps. I made Lava Magnus (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which was a 3 player map intended for this competition, but I saw everyone else was doing the same thing, and set my sights on a team map. The results are seen here today. Holy man this is epic! Until I read your goal though it seemed like it was supposed to be around equal skill 3v4 with the 3 side having more advantages, but it seems not. Will probably play on this map a couple times with friends if we only have 7 people ^-^
Actually, it is supposed to be equal skill. By weaker, I meant fewer opporunities to expand, harder to defend, etc.
|
my idea was to have really different setups for the two sides. partly worked out fine.
spawn at 1 has an advantage to take the first four bases i think, lategame spawn at 8 should have an easier time to seccure his half of the map. positioning can be a bit tricky. especially with two different sides.
possibly might be picking this map up again some day.
Folly Fields
EU: v0.1
Size: 144x112
Bases: 12
n2n: 129 AU
+ Show Spoiler [Overview] +
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer influence] +
|
There are some really interesting looking maps in this competition, asymmetry gives a great chance to show off creativity
Good luck to all those taking part
|
On September 19 2011 02:03 TehTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:38 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
no comments... (hides in fear of flames) ?
Well, I tried to comment on the competitive possibilities of the maps. And your map is a 3v4 so... its really not going to be used all that much. But it is certainly well made.
|
obviously submission of maps is now closed and the judges are looking forward to have some strange games and brainfreezing analysis
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 19 2011 20:07 Samro225am wrote:
obviously submission of maps is now closed and the judges are looking forward to have some strange games and brainfreezing analysis
My map only works 3v3... But I think you'll find the top 3 easily can defeat the bottom 3 in a 3v3.
|
On September 19 2011 20:07 Samro225am wrote:
obviously submission of maps is now closed and the judges are looking forward to have some strange games and brainfreezing analysis
Lest it be mistaken the post here was more or less the final version for submission. The map thread has the details of the finalized version.
|
On September 20 2011 04:37 TehTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 20:07 Samro225am wrote:
obviously submission of maps is now closed and the judges are looking forward to have some strange games and brainfreezing analysis My map only works 3v3... But I think you'll find the top 3 easily can defeat the bottom 3 in a 3v3.
setting up a 3v4 shouldn't be too hard.
simply set each spawn as an ally of each other spawn in its team
it is kinda hard to explain so if you take a look at this map file:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15345289/team_placement_3v4.SC2Map
and look at Map->Team Placement (Basic)...
you can see what I mean.
Hope this helps!
edit: spelling
|
Oh my gawd these maps look awesome. Will play when i get home
|
On September 18 2011 20:08 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Now we are seeing some real progress in the maps. A few final comments on the submissions:
@Namrufus - ...One thing I do want to point out is that the top XN tower looks like it can barely see into the 2 o'clock main, and this could be an issue with 4 gates.
Uhhhhhggggg how did I miss this? You can warp into the main using the tower... fixed version now published on NA. Thanks for the heads up!
Anyways, I can't wait to see what the judges have to say about the maps!
|
|
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 23 2011 22:26 Barrin wrote:Yeah saying something about an asymmetrical map that probably isn't wrong is a LOT harder than any other map >.< I recommend focusing on describing characteristics of the first 3-5 bases for each spawning position and not saying too much about how it relates to the others.
I don't think that really applies to all the maps. For example, my map, or HypertonicHydroponic's map. That's sort of.... difficult to pick an expo layout past 3 bases because:
On my map, like most team maps, you can't really take 4-5 bases.
On Hypertonic's map, there are multiple expansion layouts and none of them are particularly appealing compared to the other.
EDIT: Btw, shouldn't you decide what the next mapping challenge is?
|
No updates yet?? : (
How about a, "Hey guys, don't worry. We're still here!"
: D
|
your Country52797 Posts
I was thinking
+ Show Spoiler +WHERE ARE THEY AND WHERE IS THE NEXT CHALLENGE GAHHHHHHHHH!
|
Don't worry, we're still here!
I'll do write-ups this weekend. Sorry for the delay!
|
I am travelling These days and have way too much real life work, but before mapping I'll finish my write ups and discussion with the other judges.
It is really difficult though tbh with these asy maps
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
I have this odd feeling there will not be many more of these challenges lol
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
I guess everybody is concentrated at the Blizzard/TL map contest atm, I wouldn't worry too much about it until that is over.
|
On October 06 2011 07:37 lawol wrote:
I have this odd feeling there will not be many more of these challenges lol
depends on the people taking part, the judges, etc. but right now with the contest a challenge does not make any sense. I am open to organizing stuff, but i will not again accept a challenger who does not submit a map himself. it is part of the concept in my pinion that the challenger activly takes part in his challenge and the judging. Please PM the challenger (see OP) to speed up the process.
also post some happy faces in tis thread to motivate us judges to put more efort in the judging of the maps. the writing on asymmetric maps is really different that stating something about a regular map of a known format.
i still hope we can slowly develop this into a series!
cheers
|
your Country52797 Posts
Still waiting
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
My asymmetrical map (Aldebaran) has just been uploaded (to EU) bnet :D
|
That 7 player map look awesome :D
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
update: write-ups and stuff coming soon. i heared.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On October 08 2011 22:53 TehTemplar wrote:Still waiting
|
your Country52797 Posts
Who else is still waiting?
|
I'm looking forward to feedback, too, but I'm sure the judges are busy with the TL map contest and such, so I'm happy to wait.
|
On October 11 2011 16:21 Samro225am wrote:
update: write-ups and stuff coming soon. i heared.
How soon is soon? 
|
|
|
Very sorry ( I'll post them today, because I'm almost done.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On November 13 2011 02:23 monitor wrote:Very sorry ( I'll post them today, because I'm almost done.
Yay!
I've been waiting only 2 months! :p
|
On November 13 2011 02:23 monitor wrote:Very sorry ( I'll post them today, because I'm almost done.
very cool
|
your Country52797 Posts
Will there be a second challenge? I highly enjoyed the first one
|
Dezi's Map
I love how the spawns are actually very well balanced despite not seeing any symmetry in the spawn positions. Very clever with the mineral only and top right bases.
My main complaint is that I can't really figure out any reason to make this map asymmetrical instead of symmetrical (other than the challenge) if the goal is to make as equal in each spawn as possible. For example, each main and natural is identical and most spawns have the same thrid/min only layout after that. I'd prefer some differentiating factors that balance out like a highground main, highground natural, inbase expansions in one spawn, etc. so that the gameplay is only achievable by asymmetry.
Glexarn - Geostationary
Very clever, almost a reflection symmetry 3 player map (like Rush Hour in BW). As I said about Dezi's I feel like there isn't any reasoning behind why it is asymmetrical beside just for the contest. I think it would be cool to differentiate the spawns even more than they are now or just turn it into a symmetrical three player reflection map.
Balance seems pretty good. The third looks too far away from the natural, I can't imagine it being taken very often (lots of 2base all-ins). Also the top right spawn seems a little bit positionally imbalanced since there isn't a lowground third.
Quisk - Birthrights
I think the mains, particularly the one bottom right, are too easy for air to harass which will make pushing out very difficult unless you have lots of AA or keep a significant portion of your army in the main. Just adjusting the bottom right main a little bit so it is easy to push out (the main factor is ground distance vs. air distance discrepancy).
I dislike so much wasted space because it just isn't efficient map design. I'd focus on shrinking the map and also adding more open space. A lot of the wasted space (level 0 lowground) makes many of the paths too small.
Good work with the positional expansion balance!
lawol - Barren Wastes
Cool inbase expansion, but I think the top base is at an advantage because there are two inbase expansions instead of three (yes I know there are rocks, but it makes it more turtley than the bottom). To fix this, I think you should either make the second inbase in the top only have 1 gas. And you can also make the lowground third in the bottom more choked so it is easier to hold.
Namrufus - Galactic HQ
Good work but I the top left main is going to have a really hard time taking a natural. I think it would be cool to make one of them a tiny bit easier to hold (like the one with rocks) but keep the third and fourth bases close.
fenX - Stormy Plains
Great aesethetic work. My biggest concern is the 11o'clock vs. 3o'clock spawn. When the players spawn here, the 11o'clock player has access to the bottom left of the map (6 expos) very easily, while the 3o'clock player has a much harder time getting past 4 bases without expanding very aggressively.
RumbleBadger - Stepway
I dislike the vertical expansion layout on this map because it forces players to expand aggressively. All of the expansions get closer and closer to the opponent, which can be very uncomfortable for Zerg compared to maps like Metalopolis with a crescent moon expo pattern. Also in bottom left vs. top, the bottom left player can't secure a fourth nearly as easily as the top lpayer.
TehTemplar - 666/777
I can't say anything is imbalanced because its 3v4.... speaking of the concept, I think you should give the advantage to the 3 players since they are behind at the start. Maybe some gold minerals or an extra base?
Samro - Folly Fields
This seems like it plays like a symmetrical map, with just minor changes. It looks nicely balanced. But in general, I think that you should use the asymmetrical aspect to your advantage- differentiate each spawn as much as possible! The trick is to balance out the elements, but it can be done.
HypertonicHydroponic - Lands of Twisted Pleasure
This looks like a goofy map to play, but with that many bases and tight paths I'd never want to move out. I suggest if you want to make a serious version, only have about 21 expansions and open up the pathways.
Johanaz - without title
Great work varying the spawn positions, I think its really cool. I imagine it will be decently balanced, except the top right player in top right vs. bottom left can expand defensively while the other player cannot (except for the practically free third).
|
your Country52797 Posts
@monitor YAY finally!
3 players have 9 bases on my map, while 4 players have 8 bases (not counting contested bases).
Just for your information.
|
@monitor: Thanks for the feedback!
Namrufus - Galactic HQ
Good work but I the top left main is going to have a really hard time taking a natural. I think it would be cool to make one of them a tiny bit easier to hold (like the one with rocks) but keep the third and fourth bases close.
do you mean make one of the nat entrances easier to defend or the entire natural for that spawn easier to defend?
@samro255am: thanks for organizing this, it's what motivated me to start posting here.
|
We waited for monitor all the time - now he posted first. I am not at home right now, but I will post more comments and the results tomorrow.
|
On November 13 2011 03:23 monitor wrote:
HypertonicHydroponic - Lands of Twisted Pleasure
This looks like a goofy map to play, but with that many bases and tight paths I'd never want to move out. I suggest if you want to make a serious version, only have about 21 expansions and open up the pathways.
Yes it is quite a goofy map, but that's the fun of it. You rush your opponent and destroy his main only to find he's got two other bases in random parts of the map.  Built in mini-game of hide-and-seek!
I may take your suggestion and try to make a more "standard" version in the future, but not until after I get through a few other projects first (like proving to my family I still love them after the last month with the TL contest... *\_(``7)_/*).
|
your Country52797 Posts
On November 13 2011 07:40 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 03:23 monitor wrote:
HypertonicHydroponic - Lands of Twisted Pleasure
This looks like a goofy map to play, but with that many bases and tight paths I'd never want to move out. I suggest if you want to make a serious version, only have about 21 expansions and open up the pathways.
Yes it is quite a goofy map, but that's the fun of it. You rush your opponent and destroy his main only to find he's got two other bases in random parts of the map. Built in mini-game of hide-and-seek! I may take your suggestion and try to make a more "standard" version in the future, but not until after I get through a few other projects first (like proving to my family I still love them after the last month with the TL contest... *\_(``7)_/*).
What have you done to your family Hypertonic?!
and never seen ``7 used in the center of that expression.
`\_( -'_| ) _/`
|
Finally, after too much time has passed, the write-ups for all submitted maps:
Aldebaran
by dezi
+ Show Spoiler +FlopTurn Reaver: This map is very well thought out in the aspect that every spawn location has about the same expanding pattern andtiming. It almost feels a bit too symmetric. In fact there are not many things about the map that really are asymmetric. It's more of a 2 player mirrored reflection symmetry map, but with 4 spawn locations. I'm sure this map would actually play out fairly well and more balanced than most of the other submissions.
Monitor: I love how the spawns are actually very well balanced despite not seeing any symmetry in the spawn positions. Very clever with the mineral only and top right bases. My main complaint is that I can't really figure out any reason to make this map asymmetrical instead of symmetrical (other than the challenge) if the goal is to make as equal in each spawn as possible. For example, each main and natural is identical and most spawns have the same thrid/min only layout after that. I'd prefer some differentiating factors that balance out like a highground main, highground natural, inbase expansions in one spawn, etc. so that the gameplay is only achievable by asymmetry. Samro: Dezi’s map is based on a very promising concept having all spawns in one half of the map, but has some imbalances that ultimatly lead to a gameplay which does not offer equal chances to both players in competitve and casual gaming - the differences occur when outside spawn plays inside spawn and one has more bases to expand away to. All four bases have a flat choke at Main and Nat, but different to the well known toss problems as seen on Tal'Darim Altar, the mains are defended by small highground cliffs. The two outside as well as the two inside bases are roughly the same, but differ with their setup of a third base which is harder to defend for outer spawns when expanding away and not towards the opponent. Dezi’s description states that there are imbalances, but they should be adressed: the very different situated thirds and then the even less clear concept for fourths make the map’s positional balance pretty hard to interpret. The flat chokes are difficult and the rusgdistances are a bit on the short side. The maps concept is really good though and the visual design is nice and clear. Nice solution for a problematic concept, where one player basically expands forward while the other has to go backwards (5 vs 9, 7 vs 11). This is a concept that has to be elaborated on and this map is a good start with quite good visuals, too.
Geostationary
by Glexarn
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x8PC4.jpg) FlopTurbnReaver: This map is basically a 2 player mirrored reflection symmetry map but instead of a 2nd middle part it's a cutout of a 4 player rotational symmetry map. Spawning at top left&bottom right you probably wouldn't even notice it for the longest time. The 2 completely different symmetry types are very well worked together. The one thing I really have to critizise is the center. 3 expansions that close to each other is not a very good idea and I can't see it working out in an actual game. The creator should also work a bit on the openness. There are a few spots that are a tad too wide (especially between the XNT and the 3rd base of the top right spawn), in contrast to this the natural chokes of all the maps seem a bit too narrow. The textures are a bit random too, it's going in a good direction but still needs some work. Monitor: Very clever, almost a reflection symmetry 3 player map (like Rush Hour in BW). As I said about Dezi's I feel like there isn't any reasoning behind why it is asymmetrical beside just for the contest. I think it would be cool to differentiate the spawns even more than they are now or just turn it into a symmetrical three player reflection map. Balance seems pretty good. The third looks too far away from the natural, I can't imagine it being taken very often (lots of 2base all-ins). Also the top right spawn seems a little bit positionally imbalanced since there isn't a lowground third. Samro: Glexarn’s map does not really qualify as there is axial as well as rotational symmetry – which in itself is not a bad concept at all, but needs to be applied with great attention. While the basic setup for all three mains, normals and thirds is the same, there are strong positional imbalances regarding the number of bases available. Only the 5 vs 11 spawns are ok in a way, the two other spawn setup both are flawed, as the number of expansions that are available varies i relation to the number of chokes and area to control. The visuals are clean, but also a bit too simplistic from my taste. Not asymmetric and same first three bases, yet imbalanced in late game. Good basic idea for a symmetry: needs to be elaborated! I have sth like that on my hdd, but also not polished enough. Hurry up, fix the problems and be the develper of a new way of creating symmetry. Creating such a new design is not enough though. Try to balance the different spawns and bases and be more creative with the visuals.
Birthrights
by Quisk
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Updated%20Photos/BROverview2.jpg) FlopTurnReaver: This is just really confusing at the first glance. If we examine it further we see that the map isn't asymmetrical in the same sense as the other submissions. All the bases are exactly(?) the same on both sides and the routes are almost the same too. The only thing that really differes is the terrain which is unbelievabely gimmicky. There are 2 wide open fields in the middle and a lot of tiny tiny chokes. There's also a ton of wasted space and other features that don't really contribute to the map. However this is not about making a compeditively playable map so I guess the goal of the creator was reached, designing something that has never been made before. It looks dangerous and you have to be weary on several spots on this map to not get surprised and overrun. Monitor: I think the mains, particularly the one bottom right, are too easy for air to harass which will make pushing out very difficult unless you have lots of AA or keep a significant portion of your army in the main. Just adjusting the bottom right main a little bit so it is easy to push out (the main factor is ground distance vs. air distance discrepancy). I dislike so much wasted space because it just isn't efficient map design. I'd focus on shrinking the map and also adding more open space. A lot of the wasted space (level 0 lowground) makes many of the paths too small. Good work with the positional expansion balance!
Samro: Quisk’ s map is really large and has an extreme rush distance. Also it has too many chokes. The availability of bases varys with the number of expansions. I think it is interesting, but does not work here. A more basic design, yet asymmetric, might be better to try such an experiment: e.g. easier third for one player, but he has to survive that long first, because his nat is more open. This would be extremly interesting, but needs much more work than this effort. Go and shrink everything and make a simpler terrain and polish the different distances and openess grades for the different bases and you will get somehing nice! Visuals are something i cannot see on this dark map. Verdict: Live simply - that is okay - but with consciousness! The map is unplayable in its current state as it obviously does not consider normal scaling, nat to nat distance etc.
Barren Wastes
by lawol
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k0QpF.jpg) FlopTurnReaver: This map looks a bit like the creator didn't really know what he wanted to do with the terrain. The mains are huge, there are 2 parts on the left and right that are basically the same feature but with a different looks and in the middle we have a WniO island (yeah, that's exactly what I'm calling it!) I like the aspect that the vulnurabilities between the 2 spawns are so different. The bottom player has 1 inbase expansion but the next 2 are, while still faily close, forward towards the enemy. The top spawning player has 2 inbase expansions and only 1 towards the enemy which makes it easier to turtle, so no matter what races the 2 players will pick, the bottom player will always be encouraged to play more aggressive. Or both players will just play a classic BW 20min no rush game and fight for the center High Yield base in the end. What I really like about the map is that it also encourages air play. Maybe finally a map we could see some carrier play? Monitor: Cool inbase expansion, but I think the top base is at an advantage because there are two inbase expansions instead of three (yes I know there are rocks, but it makes it more turtley than the bottom). To fix this, I think you should either make the second inbase in the top only have 1 gas. And you can also make the lowground third in the bottom more choked so it is easier to hold. Samro: Lawol’s map basically is a ring around a winner’s gold on an island with four bases grouped together on each side. So far there is no asymmetry, but the setup of the mains, backdoors and openness of bases creates some asymmetry/ imbalances. One base has the backdor really far away, so it is hard to defend, while the other has two bases o low ground. In a way it balances out, but this is really hard to say i fit works. At least this map provides great fun matches, because you think about how to abuse the other’s position. Visuals are basic, but very solid. I think this in one of the better maps, because there is a clear concept of asymmetry, the layout is rather easy to read in can be played for fun. Verdict: Quite imbalanced for something almost symmetric, but is fun!
Galactic HQ
by Namrufus
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ITyHd.jpg) FlopTurnReaver: I heard this was one of the options for Blizzard to fix Meta close spawn. What strikes me first about this map is the expanding pattern. While 9 o'clock has a pretty confortable cw expanding opportunity with 5 expansions, the other 2 spawns are left with only 2 really confortable expansions, depending on the start location of the enemy. This map is really hard to see through. Basically there are just expansions at any places where there would be open space. I guess you could call it the smalles heavy macro map out there. I don't really know what more to say about this map. The lonely island ![[image loading]](http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/giggle.gif) is a cute idea too. Monitor: Good work but I the top left main is going to have a really hard time taking a natural. I think it would be cool to make one of them a tiny bit easier to hold (like the one with rocks) but keep the third and fourth bases close. Samro: Namrufus’ map basically is a really asymmetric interpretation on the Metalopolis theme with some interesting use of cliffs and ramps and a well constructed theme and visuals. While the distances of the first three bases is very similar, the number of chokes and wall-in options differ greatly. For more bases the problem is even bigger, but i do not expect all 15 bases to be taken. Tower and island placing add up, so this is a fun, but not very balanced candidate as far as i can analyse it. When doing a three player map one has to make sure it is no tone player who has an easier access into the neutral base. There are plenty of ideas, although many are known from metalopolis. I’d take this map, cut it into pieces and transform these into two or three 2player maps.
Stormy Plains
by fenX
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/18HTF.jpg) FlopTurnReaver: This is definitly one of my favourite submitted maps. Not only does it look very clean, but also doesn't it really matter where the 2 players spawn, it will always be a fairly balanced and fun game. Unless it's 3 o'clock vs 5 o'clock. That'd be terrible. In any other cases the map can be split very well no position really seems op. The dimensions are overall excellent, except for the a little too open middle. I can't really decide wether I like the options of army movement. There don't seem to be that many. It's either through the open middle, which you don't want to risk against a zerg, or the potentially very far path around the corner (talking about 11 vs 5 o'clock). Overall the map seems nice and fun the aesthetics are of course top, as I expected from fenX. Monitor: Great aesethetic work. My biggest concern is the 11o'clock vs. 3o'clock spawn. When the players spawn here, the 11o'clock player has access to the bottom left of the map (6 expos) very easily, while the 3o'clock player has a much harder time getting past 4 bases without expanding very aggressively. Samro: FenX’s map offers lots of different expansion layouts and strategies, ninja bases and in general quite some asymmetry while providing equal oppotunities for the first three bases at least. From then on players can develop race and playstyle specific strategies and use very different expansion option like islands, take control of the centre and one of the two gold bases. While some bases seem to better easier defendable than other that are prone to air or drop harass, leading to a nit perfect balance, it guarantees interesting matches and players have to develop knowledge of the terrain and learn how to play the map. Visually the map is clean, yet detailed and has a well developed theme: plains It is a complex map concept and good execution that makes this map a serious take on asymetric mapping.
Stepway
by RumbleBadger
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UJiWw.jpg) FlopTurnReaver: Oh right, this one. I guess I could just copy what I wrote about it when I awarded it with a Special Award for MotM#9. However I'm not gonna do that. I'm just gonna read it and kinda rephrase it. So if you look at the picture of this map, what do you see? Hmmm? EXACTLY! It looks like the tease of a new Terran unit for HotS (seriously, check it: + Show Spoiler +) Ok but in all seriousness now, the map just brims with creativity. Every starting location has some easy to take expansions near itself, like any standart map. Indeed, there are some gimmicks like the tiny ramps and passages, but don't those features just give it even more charm? I'm not sure how far this map would be playable but I really endorse the creators effort of making such a special and aesthetically pleasing map. Yes, if you actually peek through the kinda weird overall look you'll see the really nice texture work. Monitor: I dislike the vertical expansion layout on this map because it forces players to expand aggressively. All of the expansions get closer and closer to the opponent, which can be very uncomfortable for Zerg compared to maps like Metalopolis with a crescent moon expo pattern. Also in bottom left vs. top, the bottom left player can't secure a fourth nearly as easily as the top lpayer.
Samro: Rumble Badger’s map looks really strange and needs kind of a walk through of all bases to understand the advantages and disadvantages for each spawn of this really asymmetric map. The 11 spawn provides four bases in close proximity, but the natural is hard to wall in die tu cardinal direction ramp and the third and fourth are on a low ground, forcing the player to be pro-active and take control of the middle area. The nearby highround has to be scouted, because it can be used for harass and tanks against fourth. The 11 spawn seems to bet he easiest to play on, because four bases can be hold comfortable. The 7 spawn is in a tougher spot as the third can be drop-harassed from the highround and the fourth is really open. Since there are quite some chokes a player at 7 would wall-in and max on two or three bases. Spawn at five ist he strangest ever with a highround fourth that is equally hard to reach for attacker and defender. In general there are quite some interesting ideas, but extreme spacing (huge openness, tiny chokes vayring in all areas) makes this map positional and racially imbalanced. This map could be much better with better sense for good scale followed by some better balancing of thirds and fourth and more work put into the visual theme.
Something
by TheTemplar
+ Show Spoiler +FlopTurnReaver: Ok. A 3v4 player map. Well I guess this map is perfect if you're in a bit of an uneven company, like in one team you have 3 good guys and in the other team you have 4 good guys but one's dead. Or similar. Like the previous reviewed map 'Stepway', this map is just based on gimmicks. A lot of highgrounds and double highgrounds that don't really have a business but are nice to look at. I mean I could look at it from the competitive aspect and write down a list with everything that's bad and imbalanced, but that would be the completely wrong process for a map like this. Instead I'm just gonna mention how fun this probably is to play at a lan party if you can somehow balance out the 3v4 team. There's a ton of expansions and rocks to direct your anger against. Yes, the bases and expansions are totally unsymmetrically located but I don't think it even really matters on such a crazy map. Monitor: I can't say anything is imbalanced because its 3v4.... speaking of the concept, I think you should give the advantage to the 3 players since they are behind at the start. Maybe some gold minerals or an extra base? Samro: The map is made to be imbalanced and be played by different strength/skilled players. So one really cannot predict how it would play and I could not get six other people to play against me. Analyzing the map I can only state the some scaling (mains) seems weird and that there are very few bases to expand too regarding that seven players play on this map. The extra APM from the one player could be balanced out a bit with many more bases being more esily available for the weaker team (3p).
Folly Fields
by Samro
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FDV5c.jpg) FlopTurnReaver: Now this is a nice case of 2 different 2 player rotational symmetry maps beeing forced into one. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm actually not a big fan of the expanding possibilities. Both players have to take 2 expansions in both directions which makes it really hard to defend everything in late game. However I really like the locations of the expansions. No base looks too vulnurable compared with the others. Well maybe the 10 o'clock base is a bit easier to attack with the high ground advantage but that's a small sacrifice for asymmetry. I'd really like to see this map in a big tournament someday, just to confuse the pros and see how they'd handle it. The one thing I'd like to critisyze is the realism. There's crops on so many bases! You can't build on crops!? TL;DR: Map sucks, creator's probably a douche. Monitor: This seems like it plays like a symmetrical map, with just minor changes. It looks nicely balanced. But in general, I think that you should use the asymmetrical aspect to your advantage- differentiate each spawn as much as possible! The trick is to balance out the elements, but it can be done. Samro: I do not want to write about my own map really, except that this could be two 2spawn maps that might actually be balanced, but it looks more interesting to me as an almost balanced asymmetric map. I think the two sides are different enough and more defined/different sides would be possible to balance, but would also define the game too much, forcing each race into a playstyle. Needs lots of playtests.
Lands of Twisted Pleasure
by HypertonicHydroponic
+ Show Spoiler +FlopTurnReaver: Well that name sounds promising. Let's take a look at this piecGREAT SCOTT!! What is this?? Ok, call down. Well this is uhm.. confusing? I'm not really sure what to say about this. It kinda looks like a map from a parallel universe where Dustin Browder likes bases instead of rocks. It pretty much looks like an island map, but you can actually walk between the islands. However if you do you'll probably die. I'm not even gonna try making something out of this. My best guess is „supports airplay“ which is always a fine thing. So yeah.. I'll just leave you with that. Monitor: This looks like a goofy map to play, but with that many bases and tight paths I'd never want to move out. I suggest if you want to make a serious version, only have about 21 expansions and open up the pathways. Samro: The scaling overall and size of paths of the map makes it pretty much unplayable for me. It is not really interestig to discuss balance regarding layout and expansions here, because there is so much imbalance already produced with the very much non-standard terrain.
without title
by Johanaz
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YXvk8.jpg) FlopTurnReaver: As on Samro's map we can see here different layouts inside one map. The creator is using 3 completely different Main/Nat concepts. The one thing that actually bothers me about this is that the starting location who actually has the easiest natural also has the easiest third. He tries to balance it out by only giving that natural 1 geyser but still, the top right base has a very hard third compared with the 2 other spawns. The one thing that's really cool is that no matter what 2 spawns you get, the expansion pattern is fairly simple and it should be possible to defend many expansions at the same time. I'm not sure if there'd ever be a fight for the high yield expansion but it also is located in a nice position. Overall I really like this map with almost all the features implemented. Monitor: Great work varying the spawn positions, I think its really cool. I imagine it will be decently balanced, except the top right player in top right vs. bottom left can expand defensively while the other player cannot (except for the practically free third). Samro: I do not really know, if fellow TPW.mapmaker Johanaz finished this map, but in its current state it is too unbalanced with some expansions being to easy to grap for one side.10v8 looks extremly imbalanced with out side having so easy access to a bigger number of bases including the only gold base.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Something
by TheTemplar
I called it "Megalomania Parlor of Ash" back when I made it.
A lot of highgrounds and double highgrounds
Specifically the cliff above the 3P inside natural and the middle?
I agree this map is somewhat gimmicky, but I don't think that you are correct in saying that both teams have an equal amount of expansions. The 4 players have 4 expansions (in-base nat, 2 bases between them and gold, and 6 o'clock). The 3 players have 8 expansions (in-base nat, 4 bases below their base, and 3 bases to the left can be taken fairly easily. Also, a lot of paths cover other paths, so defending is easier.
There's a ton of expansions and rocks to direct your anger against. Yes, the bases and expansions are totally unsymmetrically located but I don't think it even really matters on such a crazy map.
^^
The map is made to be imbalanced and be played by different strength/skilled players. So one really cannot predict how it would play and I could not get six other people to play against me. Analyzing the map I can only state the some scaling (mains) seems weird
How would I fix the skill imbalance being required?
Also, this map is pretty big so choke points are likely wider than they look. I will look into that though.
and that there are very few bases to expand too regarding that seven players play on this map.
This map has more bases than every 8 player map blizzard has. If that's still not enough, I have an idea for 2-3 more bases (mostly favoring the 3P).
Thanks!
|
Innovation Award
+ Show Spoiler +goes to dezi with Aldebaran and an Honorable Mention to Glexarn with Geostationary+ Show Spoiler +Aldebaran has some minor balance issues, because the inside (say 7 o'clock) spawn can expans away, while the outside (say 11 o'clock) spawn has to expand towards the enemy. But overall the layout is really interesting and deserves to be highlighted. Congratulation dezi, we hope you pick this up again and develop this into a more balanced 1on1 or teammap! The Honorable Mention for Innovation goes to Geostationary for the implementation of rota-mirror-mirror symmetry. Nice! (although it might not be your invention) + Show Spoiler +
Frankenstein Award
+ Show Spoiler +goes to Namrufus with Galactic HQ+ Show Spoiler +The map is a beautifull and at the same time terrible montage of elements we all know so well. Some pieces are stiched together ingeniously, others are linked up in a way that one thinks are scar tumors left behind from the last match on metalopolis. In the end, it works within limitations. We just have to give this award! + Show Spoiler +
Most Balanced Map
+ Show Spoiler +goes to Aldebaran by Dezi; runner-up is Folly Fields by Samro + Show Spoiler +Both could be better balanced, but also be designed with more emphasize on more divers situations and asymmetries. Overall Aldebaran is better suitable to and rather balanced in competitive play, albeit showing few really asymmetric gameplay situations. + Show Spoiler +
Prize for Visual Design and Atmosphere
+ Show Spoiler +
Most asymmetry Award
+ Show Spoiler +to Johanaz with without title+ Show Spoiler +Most asymmetry can be found in Johanaz map without title, too bad it is unfinished and not balanced at all! + Show Spoiler +
|
Poll: Who wins the Mapping Challenge #1 on Aymmetric MapsGalactic HQ by Namrufus (5) 33% Aldebaran by dezi (3) 20% Stormy Plains by fenX (3) 20% Barren Wastes by lawol (2) 13% Something by TheTemplar (1) 7% Folly Fields by Samro (1) 7% Geostationary by Glexarn (0) 0% Birthrights by Quisk (0) 0% Stepway by RumbleBadger (0) 0% Lands of Twisted Pleasure by HypertonicHydroponic (0) 0% without title by Johanaz (0) 0% 15 total votes Your vote: Who wins the Mapping Challenge #1 on Aymmetric Maps (Vote): Aldebaran by dezi
(Vote): Geostationary by Glexarn
(Vote): Birthrights by Quisk
(Vote): Barren Wastes by lawol
(Vote): Galactic HQ by Namrufus
(Vote): Stormy Plains by fenX
(Vote): Stepway by RumbleBadger
(Vote): Something by TheTemplar
(Vote): Folly Fields by Samro
(Vote): Lands of Twisted Pleasure by HypertonicHydroponic
(Vote): without title by Johanaz
The judges analyzed the maps and tried to comment on all aspects of interest, now it is up to you to decide on the winning map!
|
your Country52797 Posts
On November 14 2011 05:29 Samro225am wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: Who wins the Mapping Challenge #1 on Aymmetric MapsGalactic HQ by Namrufus (5) 33% Aldebaran by dezi (3) 20% Stormy Plains by fenX (3) 20% Barren Wastes by lawol (2) 13% Something by TheTemplar (1) 7% Folly Fields by Samro (1) 7% Geostationary by Glexarn (0) 0% Birthrights by Quisk (0) 0% Stepway by RumbleBadger (0) 0% Lands of Twisted Pleasure by HypertonicHydroponic (0) 0% without title by Johanaz (0) 0% 15 total votes Your vote: Who wins the Mapping Challenge #1 on Aymmetric Maps (Vote): Aldebaran by dezi
(Vote): Geostationary by Glexarn
(Vote): Birthrights by Quisk
(Vote): Barren Wastes by lawol
(Vote): Galactic HQ by Namrufus
(Vote): Stormy Plains by fenX
(Vote): Stepway by RumbleBadger
(Vote): Something by TheTemplar
(Vote): Folly Fields by Samro
(Vote): Lands of Twisted Pleasure by HypertonicHydroponic
(Vote): without title by Johanaz
The judges analyzed the maps and tried to comment on all aspects of interest, now it is up to you to decide on the winning map!
Ohhhhh Noessss I'm losing!!
Must vote for self!
Edit: I don't understand the current first place... how many people vote for themselves btw? All of them?
|
Thanks for the detailed feedback!
and
Frankenstein Award
goes to Namrufus with Galactic HQ
The map is a beautifull and at the same time terrible montage of elements we all know so well. Some pieces are stiched together ingeniously, others are linked up in a way that one thinks are scar tumors left behind from the last match on metalopolis. In the end, it works within limitations. We just have to give this award!
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
people just love monster movies
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mMpWH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bRIjP.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5kLXV.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JvJZF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/slfbR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T0gfc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EnJHu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7RkVm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3HTgB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GUgcq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4yLEx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wfhws.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eLsgZ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dfoKJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/msqgP.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1SSdl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wpezk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RCt5D.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w85MW.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e4cYu.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Hvp2a.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NttmPh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8SGe0h.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ddxkMh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SGsdmh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A2izyh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XmkyDh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HKARBh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VGZOyh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ac8KQh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xh32Th.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LJNljh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G5w8ih.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hXzi0h.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OuZUMh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CQjMdh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yTKlxh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4jeGqh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X4fgMh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aIfZ9h.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HiGFGh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uW2Fih.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UpFIR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S1GRa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UJ4pl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5kTwc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KBNgX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PhODr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iISGg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/doKlX.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rWTcw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e66DG.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gSyDd.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9puYZ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Birthrights-influence-10-4-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Birthrights-shortestPaths-10-4-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Birthrights-shortestPaths-10-4-nats-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kTf5fl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bsNFBl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LrhKA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dOU3T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Er4sx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3JTB5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fOEPn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0C0G3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WPDTN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oyeg3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CIrHK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O7D44.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UmPTW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5pXGR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ej01k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NgC73.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9m4vN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/epthO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cnqxD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JZfdk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kbJZm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3xXL2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e9zwc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XC2Ow.jpg)
