|
GALACTIC HQ v 2.3
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UOGGD.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [beauty shots] +
In a galaxy of conflict, are you a force of order or disorder?
+ Show Spoiler [overview] +
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer rush distances] +
1o'clock vs 6'oclock:
145
10o'clock vs 6'oclock:
135
10o'clock vs 1'oclock:
155
+ Show Spoiler [old versions] +
I had originally posted this map in the asymmetric maps challange, based on the comments and feedback I got there I decided to make major changes to the the eastern starting position and other parts of the map. instead of taking up more space in that thread, I decided to create this thread for the map.
FEATURES
an asymmetric map, based partly on Metalopolis
each spawn combination will lead to a different type of game.
I tried to incorperate balance by equalizing the expansion opportunities for each of the spawn combinations, for example in a 1o'clock vs 10o'clock game, each player has two easier expansions followed by a more vulnerable base that is farther away.
there is an island, it has some pods that should theoretically allow protoss to drop or warpin more easily!
CONCERNS
probably alot of stuff, I am not an expert mapper or player.
FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS
Published on the NA server under the name "Galactic HQ" (without the quotes) if you want to check it out.
please leave your feedback, comments and suggestions so that I can improve this map!
|
Arent islands terran favored?
|
On August 28 2011 02:54 Basagu wrote:
Arent islands terran favored?
No. they are protoss unfavored, since both zerg and terran can haras them really easily with drops and mutas, but no race can defend them propelly vs terran or zerg.
|
mmm in generall islands are bad to take, since no one can really defend them (well zerg can with a nydus, but thats like "Hey i have taken the island !!")
Since they are unused its quiet good to hide something there. I am actually missing island expos. (mostly taken out because no one scouted those :/ )
5 o clock will have a few problems with the island expos, but has the lil gold to make up for that, so i quiet like it. (though gold might be to much at that posi.)
|
hmm i dont like how you just altered metalopolis but at least you kept the aesthetic.
|
You may have just started with Metalopolis.. but the map is completely different. Exelent map, i like that you tried the asymetric challange.
|
United States10569 Posts
the map is pretty good for an asymmetric map challenge. this would in my opinion rank up with fantasy//fantasy 2 in sc bw. When i first clicked the link, i thought to myself, "something about pokemon pearl/diamond/platinum?" xD
|
not an expert, so take my advice with a grain of salt:
5 oclock vs 1 oclock seems problematic. Early rush is fixed by the rocks, but in midgame, once rocks are destroyed, the distance seems to be tiny. That combined with the fact that they are expanding towards each other, and that there's only one choke, with a very long difficult path for flanks and counter attacks would make this death for zerg in those positions.
I would actually switch the positions of 1's natural and main or change the natural to the left-top side. I would also remove most of the rocks on the map, specifically the ones at 3oclock since 1-5 rush wont be a problem anymore and also to allow scouting in either direction. also remove both the ones blocking the 4th on the left side, since a left facing nat at the 1 can pressure the 10 if he tries to expand too much. Moving the natural to the topleft of the main also gets rid of some of the map's deadspace.
and add another double or triple wide ramp to the gold please, It is much too easy to defend.
I really like the map though, it has a really good chance of being balanced. Best asymmetrical map I've seen so far.
|
The bottom main has a harder 3rd to take while the top two mains have easy, quicker 3rds.
|
Thanks for the feedback!
@Sea_Food
do you think that adding pods like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
to the island might make it easier for protoss to drop or warp in and harass?
@FeyFey
i'm not too sure about the gold either, I might remove it later.
@WinO
to be clear, I didn't actaully copy-paste pieces of metalopolis, the map was done entirely by hand. I have been working to change the map to play less like metalopolis though, if you check the earlier versions they look alot more like the metalopolis.
@Gl!tch
thanks!
@FlaShFTW
I actually didn't make that connection when I was thinking of names! The buildings should have spikes on them like the team galactic building lol.
@Fishgle
the problem with bringing the entrance to 1's natural to the top left side is that it makes it too easy for 10 to expand into 1's nat/main in a game between 5 and 10, 5 will end up with less availible bases in the endgame. I do see the problem though. I'll keep thinking about it... switching 1's main and nat might be a bit more viable...
@IronManSC
I will add an additional ramp up to 5's third pointeing into the natural to make it a little easier to defend in the next version.
|
On August 28 2011 08:06 IronManSC wrote:
The bottom main has a harder 3rd to take while the top two mains have easy, quicker 3rds.
This is exactly what I thought when I saw the map. The same could be said for its natural. Other than that, I'm pretty impressed with how well balanced this map appears for an asymmetric one.
|
Its not symmetrical.
I hate to be overly short, but this is all I needed to see before I personally disliked the map.
When you make maps that arent symmetrical you encourage spawn positions to give players automatic advantages/disadvantages before they have clicked a single space once.
I would never play simply because of this reasoning. Which may seem shallow/blunt but its my true honest opinion. When you make the map nonsymmetrical you encourage "imbalanced" cries.
|
On August 28 2011 12:49 MaestroSC wrote:
Its not symmetrical.
I hate to be overly short, but this is all I needed to see before I personally disliked the map.
When you make maps that arent symmetrical you encourage spawn positions to give players automatic advantages/disadvantages before they have clicked a single space once.
I would never play simply because of this reasoning. Which may seem shallow/blunt but its my true honest opinion. When you make the map nonsymmetrical you encourage "imbalanced" cries.
I understand. Any asymmetric map probably cannot be perfectly 100% balanced for all matchups and races in all phases of the game.
However, that doesn't mean that the mapper can't try to minimize these imbalances. My personal opinion is that the imbalances can be minimized until they are almost unnoticible. This is unlikely with this map of course, but thats the reason I am working on this map, to improve my own mapping ability and understanding of the game.
|
On August 28 2011 13:06 Namrufus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 12:49 MaestroSC wrote:
Its not symmetrical.
I hate to be overly short, but this is all I needed to see before I personally disliked the map.
When you make maps that arent symmetrical you encourage spawn positions to give players automatic advantages/disadvantages before they have clicked a single space once.
I would never play simply because of this reasoning. Which may seem shallow/blunt but its my true honest opinion. When you make the map nonsymmetrical you encourage "imbalanced" cries. I understand. Any asymmetric map probably cannot be perfectly 100% balanced for all matchups and races in all phases of the game. However, that doesn't mean that the mapper can't try to minimize these imbalances. My personal opinion is that the imbalances can be minimized until they are almost unnoticible. This is unlikely with this map of course, but thats the reason I am working on this map, to improve my own mapping ability and understanding of the game.
I would even say. Any map cannot be perfectly 100% balanced for all matchups and races in all phases of the game.
Though I believe that assymetry needs like 50times more testing.
Thoughts on the map:
In top vs bottom I think the gold base is too easy to take for bottom. Both players have similar 3rds (bottom third is even better because of high ground in my eyes) and their way to the left bases is - again - similar, so I don't see a real reason why bottom should have an easier gold base (especially one that is on the high ground and very strong as a siege position vs top).
Personally I think that you use too many rocks to counteract rush distances, though I think that they could be fine without them or with just very little changes. (as benchmark, XNC has ~140-145 rush distance, your map has 170-190, so if changes would lead to something like ~160 rush distance, it would still be fine imo)
|
On August 28 2011 16:49 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 13:06 Namrufus wrote:On August 28 2011 12:49 MaestroSC wrote:
Its not symmetrical.
I hate to be overly short, but this is all I needed to see before I personally disliked the map.
When you make maps that arent symmetrical you encourage spawn positions to give players automatic advantages/disadvantages before they have clicked a single space once.
I would never play simply because of this reasoning. Which may seem shallow/blunt but its my true honest opinion. When you make the map nonsymmetrical you encourage "imbalanced" cries. I understand. Any asymmetric map probably cannot be perfectly 100% balanced for all matchups and races in all phases of the game. However, that doesn't mean that the mapper can't try to minimize these imbalances. My personal opinion is that the imbalances can be minimized until they are almost unnoticible. This is unlikely with this map of course, but thats the reason I am working on this map, to improve my own mapping ability and understanding of the game. I would even say. Any map cannot be perfectly 100% balanced for all matchups and races in all phases of the game. Though I believe that assymetry needs like 50times more testing.
I have to agree. I think that asymmetry is a great idea and needs to continue to be explored. All races have advantages and disadvantages at various points of gameplay. No matter what, no map is 100% perfect at all times for each race.
|
Map Update!
it's a test version: some or all of the changes made in this version probably be reverted.
+ Show Spoiler +
I made alot of changes from the last version, I think I made a few too many though... I'm not really sure if its even an improvement.
MAJOR CHANGES:
-changed location of 1oclock's natural: I took Fishgl's advice and moved the natural to the top-left. this is the largest change that I am the least sure about.
-rearranged 5o'clock's spawning area. I did this to equalize the distance and vulnerability for expansions for 10o'clock and 1o'clock
-changed the gold base: changed the gold half-base to a blue full base to give 5o'clock another normal expansion, added a new entrance to improve mobility in that part of the map.
-the aesthetics kind of deteriorated, this is a test version though, I'll fix it later.
FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS:
Published on the NA server under the name "Galactic HQ" (without the quotes). Why not try a game or two?
please leave your feedback, comments and suggestions so that I can improve this map!
edit: grammer/spelling/clarification
|
Analyzer rush distances need a bit of fixing. Threy're all 1 o'clock v 5 o'clock with different numbers.
|
On August 28 2011 12:49 MaestroSC wrote:
Its not symmetrical.
I hate to be overly short, but this is all I needed to see before I personally disliked the map.
When you make maps that arent symmetrical you encourage spawn positions to give players automatic advantages/disadvantages before they have clicked a single space once.
I would never play simply because of this reasoning. Which may seem shallow/blunt but its my true honest opinion. When you make the map nonsymmetrical you encourage "imbalanced" cries.
If you read the OP, he says he made it for the Asymmetric Map Challenge, which can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255881
So, you know, you're kind of criticising him for mapping within the constraints of a challenge that he can't change.
I think it's clear that the challenge was put in place to explore the possibilities with asymmetric maps. Props to the OP for doing a good job so far!
|
On August 30 2011 14:31 Mammel wrote:
Analyzer rush distances need a bit of fixing. Threy're all 1 o'clock v 5 o'clock with different numbers.
oops.
The OP is now fixed! thanks.
|
Map Update!
+ Show Spoiler +
CHANGES:
balance: reverted 1o'clock and 5o'clock(now 6o'clock) spawns mostly to how they were before. Made a bunch of other minor adjustments. increased the rush distance between 1 and 5. I'm actually alot happier with this version than the last one.
aesthetics: improved a bit, still not 100% done but more complete than last version. changed model of los blockers in main because of framerate issues. added more cool decals to the ramps.
FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS:
Published on the NA server under the name "Galactic HQ" (without the quotes). Why not try a game or two?!
please leave your feedback, comments and suggestions so that I can improve this map!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ehymH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qWefo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KJmr9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GsKJ0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZVrxM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Tl0ZL.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jEjfG.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Vnyfx.jpg)
