EPT
, would like to see more of the breed and butter TDA have 2 bases ,have 3 easy expos, enjoy kind of maps and i am honestly surprised no map maker is making those kind of maps but then again... who am I to judge.TL Map Contest Results - Page 25
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
, would like to see more of the breed and butter TDA have 2 bases ,have 3 easy expos, enjoy kind of maps and i am honestly surprised no map maker is making those kind of maps but then again... who am I to judge. | ||
|
Absurd Bunny
168 Posts
The others either are to similar to other maps, or they just look to unbalanced or boring. :/ | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
So far I'm liking Ohana and Korhal Compound. Maybe Cloud Kingdom as well. Regardless, the map pool needs more 2 player maps, they tend to be more creative with the base layout. | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On November 14 2011 06:52 -NegativeZero- wrote: The image for Sanctuary needs to be updated, it looks much better now with its new texturing. So far I'm liking Ohana and Korhal Compound. Maybe Cloud Kingdom as well. Regardless, the map pool needs more 2 player maps, they tend to be more creative with the base layout. Glad to hear  I really like all of the winning maps, but I'm actually feeling like Burning Altar and Twilight Peaks are a bit too similar in layout to both be in. | ||
|
Flossy
United States870 Posts
Also at the beginning it says "Teamliquid announce a map contest" | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
On November 14 2011 06:56 monitor wrote: I really like all of the winning maps, but I'm actually feeling like Burning Altar and Twilight Peaks are a bit too similar in layout to both be in. Besides being both 12 base roatational symmetry and having roughly the same expansion placement (twilight peaks the thirds a good bit more inward) how are they the same at all? I mean, one has a ramp at the nat, one doesn't. One has a high ground third, one has a low-ground third. The centers are completely different and the interplay between bases are totally different. Also, Burning Altar's high to low ground transitions are more flowy while Twilight Peaks highlights the contrast between cliff heights more. And Twilight Peaks is generally slightly tighter with more chokes. They seem very, very different to me, although I guess I might be undervaluing the fact that they have similar base placement. I guess it's just that the bases interact very differently on each map, so they don't really compare in my mind. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On November 14 2011 12:31 Barrin wrote: the only real difference is army positioning gameplay, which, while certainly huge, is still only one thing out of many. i guess the third being on low ground vs the third being on high ground is pretty significant too, but thats kinda part of army positioning gameplay ^^ I'd say the general concept of a 12 base rotational map (equal distance from third to fourth) where you have a harder third and fourth but a "free" fifth is present in both maps. Both maps have the same expansion progression, and a lot of pathways through the center. The actual 'conceptual' gameplay where you plan strategies and describe the map is practically identical. The only real notable difference is the center, although the center will almost always play a similar role in a 12 base rotational map. There are minor differences obviously, like openness and tower placement. However, these alone don't change the concept of a map; they are merely balance changes from a mapmakers perspective. You can always adjust chokes and such, but the concept of the map will stay the same in most cases. My personal opinion of these maps is that Twilight Peaks has a too hard third, the rush distances between naturals and thirds are too short, and the tower is more useful for aggression than defense since it is open to surrounds on both sides. Burning Altar's third is a little bit easier because of the long aggression paths (because of the rocks) and the rush distances are slightly longer, but it is still an extremely standard map and Blizzard already has all 4 player maps on ladder (except XelNaga Caverns which is very bad in todays metagame). | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
but I cannot follow your argumentation on the towerplacement at all (TP - surrounds on both sides?) -> BA towers can be avoided on both sides, because the layout works differently. While on TP you finde as bases on small highgrounds, the terrain and bases on BA flow into each other, conecting a network of paths. Also general openness differs quite a bit. most things were already mentioned, but i think you reallay has to emphasize it again: On November 14 2011 12:31 Barrin wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 14 2011 12:19 RumbleBadger wrote: Besides being both 12 base roatational symmetry and having roughly the same expansion placement (twilight peaks the thirds a good bit more inward) how are they the same at all? I mean, one has a ramp at the nat, one doesn't. One has a high ground third, one has a low-ground third. The centers are completely different and the interplay between bases are totally different. Also, Burning Altar's high to low ground transitions are more flowy while Twilight Peaks highlights the contrast between cliff heights more. And Twilight Peaks is generally slightly tighter with more chokes. They seem very, very different to me, although I guess I might be undervaluing the fact that they have similar base placement. I guess it's just that the bases interact very differently on each map, so they don't really compare in my mind. the only real difference is army positioning gameplay, which, while certainly huge, is still only one thing out of many. i guess the third being on low ground vs the third being on high ground is pretty significant too, but thats kinda part of army positioning gameplay ^^ army positiong gameplay basically defines how bases can be attacked or have to be defended. that is so much more than a little bit different layout of expansions imo. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
BA has a much safer third to take, imo. The rocks really help in holding it, despite being much further away than on Twilight (comparative, imo). The map has evenly distributed high ground so the map becomes a lot about moving through the center to avoid the poor attacking position. tldr; twilight feels like an attacking map while BA feels like a defensive map. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
I just want to say that there rly isnt a whole lot you can do with 12base 4p rotational other than changing the middle (at least if you want to be somewhat standard which was required for this contest). I also think 16base 4p rotational is better overall, it allows for more variety and you don't have the problems that 12 base has. Like with 12 base if you place the thirds between bases like on BA and TP, you kinda put them in the middle and then adjust the overall mapsize so that distance to third <-> rushdistance in close position works out. And even if you balance it perfectly (like imo BA and TP do) both are not optimal. I personally tried to balance it so that because of the short rush distance you have a highground nat and because of the thirds being so far away they are highground, choked and have a watchtower. If you create are more close third like Nerazim Crypt or Antiga Shipyard tho, getting a fourth is rly awkward and hard. Imo it just doesn't rly work that well and long term there should be way more 16 base maps than 12 base, so I was rly surprised in this event no 16 base could get a spot but two 12 base maps. The towers on TP rly see a lot , you normally have 1 tower that's on your third and then you hold another tower. But it's rly easy to deny that tower where your third isn't with mobile armies and if you lose control of your "main tower" cos your army was out of position for some seconds you have to fight against an uphill tower all of the sudden so it's like rly important to control your one tower all the time. Btw I rly wonder if "special TL Open" means there is something special about it other than the map pool. Cos Progamer invite tournament sounds fucking sweet... when I read TL Open tho I'm more like "meh". Feels like whenever TL Open is on and I look at the brackets there is a bunch of nonames and then some B-Koreans own them and win... I don't rly know if most of the EU pros just don't play it or if they all get kicked out in bo1 before but I'm not overly excited about the players most of the time. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
Updates specified in mapthread | ||
|
lawol
91 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=245339 | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On November 17 2011 08:58 lawol wrote: the name "korhal compound" seems to be taken: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=245339 Keep in mind that map has never been used in any competitive play and it hasn't been updated in 4 months. I don't think it'll be a big issue. I'll make sure to search to see if the map name is taken in the future though. | ||
|
12D3
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On November 17 2011 11:36 12D3 wrote: That is my map. I don't plan on maintaining it and just made it for fun. I'm not sure how the process works about removing a map and freeing up a name, but if that is a possibility I'm more than happy to do so to give up the name. Aah no reason. You came up with the name first, you keep it. It won't be a big issue, if anything it should make your map a bit more popular <3 | ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
Map thread here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285049 And the updated map file should have been pm'd a bit ago. If it didn't make it please contact me | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
| ||
