|
RETROSPORK v 1.0
v1.0 published on NA as "RetroSpork"
v1.0 published on EU as "RetroSpork" thanks to Chargelot
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DcqW0.jpg)
spork spork spork
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [previous versions] +v0.3 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/roNpV.jpg) v0.2 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GoN2O.jpg) v0.1 image here!
The aesthetics are no longer supposed to be based on the badlands tileset from BW.
+ Show Spoiler [beauty shots] +
when I was blocked on my 1v1 map I decided to try to finish this team map that I had started on a while ago.
it's a 4v4 map that I think should work OK as a 2v2 or 3v3 map as well.
STATS
dimensions(playable) = 177x174
spawns = 8
rocks = 8
towers = 2
Rush distances (analyzer main2main):
shortest:
128 A to D
longest:
164 A to A
Assist Distances (analyzer main2main with rocks):
~90 from A to D
tileset = custom
lighting = iGrok's Desert Night Lights
FEEDBACK COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
please post your feedback, comments, and suggestions to help me improve this map!
|
This looks really interesting. I tilted my head several times as I studied the terrain. I'd have to see good reps to analyze further, though.
|
small map update: 2v2 and 3v3 matches should now have mirrored start positions
(published on NA server)
|
The textures remind me a bit of badlands in BW! ^^
I appreciate all the nice touches you added trying to create lots of different dynamics for all the spawns and intermediate terrain. Certainly a lot to digest / exploit on this map.
However, I think it's a bit too choky in the choky spots. I think most of these could be fixed by adjusting here and there by a matter of 1-2 squares. It might be best to add more ground and then use doodads to very precisely adjust the proportions. I would err on the side of "too open" considering you don't have any such locations yet, and its for team play. Think of the bundle of 3 clockwise expansions guarded by some tanks...
Also, the current rocks setup leads to egregious army runby situations. The 2 paths circuit is ridiculous long. Maybe you can use two rocks in the middle to leave a very narrow opening across mid? If not that, at least move the towers so they cover those side ramps completely so teams don't end up in base races all the time.
D spawn looks so lonely and vulnerable. I know it has a 1ramp, but imagine if they're zerg, getting double zerg rushed. What are they supposed to do? Their help is far away and the path to get there is very wide open (vulnerable). I would move the D ramp a little closer to C if you can. And all that space in the main just hanging out asking to be dropped, nydus'd, blinked... Maybe put some water in between for part of the span of that cliff and scoot the main towards the corner more to make up the space.
Also 4v4 is a terrible gametype (obv) but this is not a bad stab at making it a little interesting. 
|
Thanks for the feedback!
On November 29 2011 16:01 EatThePath wrote:
However, I think it's a bit too choky in the choky spots. I think most of these could be fixed by adjusting here and there by a matter of 1-2 squares. It might be best to add more ground and then use doodads to very precisely adjust the proportions. I would err on the side of "too open" considering you don't have any such locations yet, and its for team play. Think of the bundle of 3 clockwise expansions guarded by some tanks...
OK, yeah, I was thinking more 1v1 scale with the choke sizes on some parts of the map I think. I'll open up some places on the map up a bit...
Also, the current rocks setup leads to egregious army runby situations. The 2 paths circuit is ridiculous long. Maybe you can use two rocks in the middle to leave a very narrow opening across mid? If not that, at least move the towers so they cover those side ramps completely so teams don't end up in base races all the time.
the rocks in the center of the map are to split the map up into 2 different halves in the early game, to make it harder for any one player to be quadruple rushed, so it'll be harder to change the placement of those. the watchower placement seems like a good idea though.
D spawn looks so lonely and vulnerable. I know it has a 1ramp, but imagine if they're zerg, getting double zerg rushed. What are they supposed to do? Their help is far away and the path to get there is very wide open (vulnerable). I would move the D ramp a little closer to C if you can. And all that space in the main just hanging out asking to be dropped, nydus'd, blinked... Maybe put some water in between for part of the span of that cliff and scoot the main towards the corner more to make up the space.
I see what you mean, this would be especially true for something like 3v3, and C base spawns empty. (D seems to get the short end of the stick on alot of things actually). I think I will take your suggestion, it should make playing as D a little more enjoyable
Also 4v4 is a terrible gametype (obv) but this is not a bad stab at making it a little interesting.
Also:
Map update (v0.2):
What do you think of this!?
+ Show Spoiler [overview] +
changes:
-more open space near rocked side paths and A and B's backdoor bases.
-changed shape of D base and reduced choke into C and D's shared nat.
-changed watchtower placement to oversee the side rocked path
Next update after this will probably be an aesthetics update.
edit: newest version published on NA server.
|
I really like it !
Any chance you publishing it on EU ?
|
On December 08 2011 08:12 Samcai wrote:
I really like it !
Any chance you publishing it on EU ?
ty!
I don't have a EU account, so It'll only be on EU if someone is willing to publish it for me.
in other news, this map needs a name, does anyone have any suggestions? (I'm actually considering keeping the name RetroSpork)
as always, please post your feedback, comments and suggestions so I can improve this map!
|
That entrance to the bottom left (and top right) two bases can be walled off with a PF and bunker. Not a complaint...just turned my main (I lifted at the start) and natural into Fort Knox.
I don't know if this is a pro or con...but it was so damned hard to get 8 200 armies to engage anywhere on the map. We pretty much ended up having to take out the two on our side and leave the other half alone. The one time we did all decide to die in the middle of the map...by the time the forth armies got there and fought, reinforcements from the first armies were already there....it was just wave upon wave of death with little accomplished.
Like I said...not sure if that's a plus or not. On the one hand, it promotes smaller strikes and allows you to focus your attention to only one or two enemies. On the other hand...it makes it difficult to combine armies for synergy purposes.
-shrug- I think I like it more than I don't.
[EDIT] Oh...and keep the name! I like RetroSpork....just because I like sporks...
|
On December 08 2011 09:29 Namrufus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 08:12 Samcai wrote:
I really like it !
Any chance you publishing it on EU ? ty! I don't have a EU account, so It'll only be on EU if someone is willing to publish it for me.
in other news, this map needs a name, does anyone have any suggestions? (I'm actually considering keeping the name RetroSpork)
as always, please post your feedback, comments and suggestions so I can improve this map!
I can publish it for you. :D shoot me a pm and we'll discuss.
|
On December 08 2011 09:30 mikiao wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
That entrance to the bottom left (and top right) two bases can be walled off with a PF and bunker. Not a complaint...just turned my main (I lifted at the start) and natural into Fort Knox.
I don't know if this is a pro or con...but it was so damned hard to get 8 200 armies to engage anywhere on the map. We pretty much ended up having to take out the two on our side and leave the other half alone. The one time we did all decide to die in the middle of the map...by the time the forth armies got there and fought, reinforcements from the first armies were already there....it was just wave upon wave of death with little accomplished.
Like I said...not sure if that's a plus or not. On the one hand, it promotes smaller strikes and allows you to focus your attention to only one or two enemies. On the other hand...it makes it difficult to combine armies for synergy purposes.
-shrug- I think I like it more than I don't.
[EDIT] Oh...and keep the name! I like RetroSpork....just because I like sporks...
ooh, you played a game on it! Thanks for posting your experience  , this will be useful.
were you playing on the old version or the new version? (you could tell if it was the old version because the old version had some grass textures)
@Chargelot: PM sent
edit: spelling
|
Uploaded to EU as RetroSpork, hosted by Chargelot.791 (Jesse Spillane).
It plays really nicely. PM me if/when you update it so I can remember to check that email again.
|
United States10217 Posts
put rocks on the smaller ramp for the A and B position so you only have one choke. But then taking an expo as A would be more challenging... maybe take out the backdoor rocks and then move those to the small choke behind the A and B expansions. Then take out the front expos for A and B
|
On December 10 2011 06:04 Chargelot wrote:
Uploaded to EU as RetroSpork, hosted by Chargelot.791 (Jesse Spillane).
It plays really nicely. PM me if/when you update it so I can remember to check that email again.
Thanks! 
@FlashFTW:
I don't know about removing expos, there are currently 3 blue bases per player, any less would probably be bad imo. I will probably reduce the size of one of the ramps for the shared main in the next version however, so it'll be 2 standard sized chokes for two players.
|
your Country52797 Posts
I just want to be able to fast expand and not die -_-.
And only one path is available until rocks are broken, which seems silly for a 4v4 map. There should be at least 3 paths.
|
On December 09 2011 10:53 Namrufus wrote:ooh, you played a game on it! Thanks for posting your experience , this will be useful. were you playing on the old version or the new version? (you could tell if it was the old version because the old version had some grass textures) @Chargelot: PM sent edit: spelling
I played the same day I posted if that helps. I'm too busy trying to kill my teammates....errrr enemies....to notice grass :D
I'm pretty sure it was the new version, but I wouldn't swear to it.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37034 Posts
On December 10 2011 07:41 Namrufus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:04 Chargelot wrote:
Uploaded to EU as RetroSpork, hosted by Chargelot.791 (Jesse Spillane).
It plays really nicely. PM me if/when you update it so I can remember to check that email again. Thanks! @FlashFTW: I don't know about removing expos, there are currently 3 blue bases per player, any less would probably be bad imo. I will probably reduce the size of one of the ramps for the shared main in the next version however, so it'll be 2 standard sized chokes for two players.
For expo situation:
Take the destructible rocks for the back entrance and put it at A's expansion.
This way, instead of expanding to the front, A can expand to the back and have a safer expansion.
Then put destructible rocks on the pathway to the back expansion to make sure A can't expand twice. So basically, A can expand once to the back but that expansion right next to it, can't be taken because of destructible rocks in it's way.
Instead of 1 small entrance and 1 big entrance, create 1 giant entrance since A and B are together.
GREAT MAP!!!
|
map update!
version 0.3
+ Show Spoiler [overview] +
the new version should address the concerns some had over the ability to fast expand
I moved the backdoor rock to the front of the shared base expo, so it's possible to expand to the backdoor bases straight away, while keeping the number and size of entrances to the main the same.
The central choke has been widened as well.
currently published to NA
Tell me what you think!
|
+ Show Spoiler +Experiencing some weird errors with updating it. I have a support ticket open, and I'll update this post when 0.3 is uploaded to EU.
Still nothing from Euro support. NA support takes less than an hour for every problem for every game. @BlizzardCS doesn't seem to be very helpful either. I'm still actively pursuing an answer, and I will get this published.
RetroSpork v0.3 is now published on the EU server.
|
Aesthetics Update!
v1.0
The aesthetics are no longer supposed to be based on the badlands tileset from BW.
+ Show Spoiler [beauty shots] +
edit: slight gameplay change with this version from 0.3--- larger airspace around the entire map
|
Aesthetics are beautiful. It really came together very well. Version 1.0 is now on EU.
|
This is a very cool map, I've always wanted to make a 4v4 just for fun to play with my friends.
But then I remembered none of my friends play SCII :'(
|
United States10217 Posts
map looks a lot better, i like the backdoor now. very nice!
|
I love what you are doing here. There is massive potential with the asymmetry between teammates. In my mind it adds a significant amount of strategy to the game. I also like how the map is kinda choke heavy, because it forces more independent skirmishes, instead of huge, winner takes all battles. Great work, this is defiantly going into my multi-player collection.
|
Really nice map! It looks pretty awesome, and adds alot to the 'dynamic' (coughcough) of 4v4
|
awesome design..very bwish <3
|
Thanks all, I'm glad you like it!
|
On November 29 2011 14:39 Namrufus wrote:
small map update: 2v2 and 3v3 matches should now have mirrored start positions
(published on NA server) Is it possible to have this update on EU too?
|
Ooooh this map got bumped ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GqFh2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/75u1n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lhDo0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7lmwB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4JBU7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z05Le.jpg)
