| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Nothing revolutionary. Just trying to make a good solid map. That's all it is. Better for a mapmaker to start simple, but well done, than to try and revolutionize gameplay and fail miserably. I'm not going to defend its similarities to a fault, but it's a good step forward for a mapmaker to make a simple but solid map. | ||
|
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
Let's stay on topic here gang. Arguing over similarities between maps is rediculous as you can take almost any map and find something similar between it and another map. I agree on both sides of the spectrum here. Is this map influenced by Whirlwind? Yes. Was that a primary thought when designing the map? No. Do the similarities make the map worthless? Of course not. I clearly stated in my OP that this map was worked on as an attempt at making a solid map. I never intended it to be anything more than that for myself. Quite frankly, I think it did a great job of giving me the re-introduction to mapping proportions that I needed (a big thanks goes out to NewSunshine and ArcticRaven on that note!) as well as an introduction to 4player mapping and learned a few things about layouts along the way. Now, as for the suggestions that have been made thus far. 1. Mains: I was/am aware they are a little on the small side. I had been hopeful that they would not need to be enlarged, but I can definitely understand the reason behind why they should be a little larger. I think I have an adjustment I can work on that will help that without affecting the nat to 3rd distances drastically (they will remain relatively equidistant). 2. Main Base Third: Gfire: I can understand your position on how to adjust the pods -- I think that area of the map will lose something special though about how much the units can maneuver with an adjustment such as the one you are suggesting. That is not to say the idea is not worth merit, and I do have thoughts on how I could do that in combination with the enlargement of the mains, it is just to say that I am not certain right now that I would be happy with such an adjustment by simplifying the area. Still I will look into it. iGrok: Good call on the mains. I think you are correct on enlarging them. And thanks for the compliment on the pathing on each of the "legs". The way I see it, there are 3 concentric rings (the center area being one of them) for maneuvering plus movements into the natural/main. My main principle here was to try and always maintain mobility for flanking purposes due to the highground advantage being present. If you can flank, you can overcome it. EaththePath: I don't want to enlarge the overall map size at all. The map originally was larger than what it is now, so doing that would be a step backwards in my opinion. Also, I think I can still accomplish necessary changes within the sizes that I have right now. Oxygensis: Yes, you're right. That was my mistake while typing up the title. If a mod coule change the thread title to "[M] (4) Bazaar" that would be great. Of the games I've seen played and/or played myself, I definitely enjoyed close positions more. It's just a different dynamic compared to cross positions. IronManSC: This map was not an exercise in aesthetics so I am not upset about it. I do think they are varied enough that players can see the difference on the minimap and in game that it won't make much difference. On future maps I would certainly like to play with aesthetics more, but right now I am concentrating on developing my layout skills as that is the basis of mapping. I have a long ways to go. Melty Butter: I certainly can appreciate your opinion and that is your right. I also certainly can see the similarites between the two maps (and wholly recognize Whirlwind as a contributing influence). I do agree with NewSunshine though that the smaller differences overall differentiate the two. If you would kindly take a look at your own 2 drawings, and note the smaller lines you drew (such as just outside the center areas, and the center area itself how the lines go around the smaller holes on Whirlwind creating 4 paths that then expand into 8 whereas mine has 8 paths to begin with) -- I think you can agree that it can influence it. If you still have a problem with it -- I would suggest you try it out. Things I would ask you to specifically try are marine/medivac elevators between the thirds and main, as well as something as simple as dropping a siege tank (or other siege weapon) onto the open drop pod for zone control (and forewarning of attacks). I would also suggest just simply moving around the low ground area with a highly mobile force and poking and prodding and slowly pulling your opponent apart. I just think as a totality you'll see some differences that might change your mind. kim9067: I would hope they wouldn't be used in the same tournament. I agree, they are too similar for tournament setting play. | ||
|
PandaZerg
Canada148 Posts
I think the map is perfect as it. Nothing to change imo and well balanced for what I see. I prefer your map center comparatively to Whirlwind. Your map looks and feels better when I play on it. Hope for you and players that your map will become popular! | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
On July 12 2012 08:45 Melty Butter wrote: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7MpGP.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jXYDl.jpg) oh wow THE DIFFERENCES! Some of the lines are even shorter than on the other version, wtf? I bet you guys thought I wouldn't go to this much trouble to prove you wrong. Who's stupid now. Still you, the admittedly small differences will still change army positioning, effectiveness of run-by's and all the like. Just remember, every map follows certain balance rules which WILL cause similarity, it is what we do with the little room we have to maneuver which sets our maps apart. | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
Things to fix- The mains are too small, extend them backwards or what not. The special drop spot- it's a cool idea, but I would prefer it to have some marking (helicopter landing pad, something like that, to make it a little more clear it is usable (not necessary, just would be nice) Not sure how I feel about the space between the 'natural' third, and the base beside it (12,3,6,9'o'clock). It seems a bit messy and cluttered in that area. If you clean this up, perhaps move the blocks around to create more of an organized space, it would go a long way to improving this map. Again, nothing ground-breaking, and similar to WW, but on the whole, quite a solid and nice map. Something I'll play on from time to time. Well done good sir! | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 13 2012 13:34 eTcetRa wrote: Just remember, every map follows certain balance rules which WILL cause similarity, it is what we do with the little room with have to maneuver which sets our maps apart. Here, have some cookies. *throws* | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
Didn't like them. *throws back* | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
ew. | ||
|
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
Cookies should be dunked, not thrown. Candy bars. . . now THOSE should be thrown! On Topic: If there are any other comments/critiques aside from waht has been mentioned, please state them.  | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
That's a great, solid map with right proportions. Exactly what every newer mapmaker should do at least once. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
Edit : And it's pretty funny that you out of all mappers would come out and say that  | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On July 14 2012 07:08 ArcticRaven wrote: Just wanted to say that if this is Whirlwind, then it is a much much better Whirlwind - it is waaay smaller. And that changes everything. Rushes are possible. You cannot hidden expo everywhere. The center is actually valuable. It's just better. And also there are more interesting features, especially the pathing around the third and from third to center. That's a great, solid map with right proportions. Exactly what every newer mapmaker should do at least once. I disagree. the reason why whichwhirlwind was that size is so that for all the thirds to fit, making the mains bigger and for a fourth thats difficult enough. whirlwind is regarded as the plerfect llayout for rotationally symmetrical maps, only problem being how big the map is because somee people prefer smaller maps. you donto wantt a map pool with only whirlwind but you dont wantt one without It either. because whirlwind is so goodd peoplepole copy It, no doubt. what youre left with is the center which people change to DivIate from whirlwind. this map is good solid map. you can't Say it is a beter version of whirlwind. also chelk the rush dist fourthr daybreak. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
another reason Is that all spawns workk. | ||
|
shadogi
United States194 Posts
On July 12 2012 06:05 Melty Butter wrote: we already have this, it's called whirlwind I was just about to post this. It really looks like whirlwind. Sorry dude. | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
| ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On July 15 2012 18:31 ArcticRaven wrote: Whirlwind is the perfect layout for 4p rota ? If the perfect 4p rota is a map that will always go to three bases without variety and makes tvz even worse than what it is now, then we should all give up on it. Well, that wouldn't be that bad,as you and oxygenesis can testify - you made essentially the same map with a different center because 4p rota is so boring and stale - but i think this map does a much better job than whirlwind, whose sheer size is a structural flaw. Wtf? I made the map first. I dont copy maps, at least i dont try to. My map was an idea of a compact rotational 4player map. Nvm, you wouldnt understand. Also this map isnt much smaller, 3 squares less each side doesnt just fix a map, which i think youre saying Also what i mean by whirldwind perfect layout is even with rotational symmetry, there are 16 bases, 2 equidistant thirds that fit on the map, which allows for all spawns to be possible which whirlwind was the first. Because it is the ideal solution, people copy it, as evidant from many maps on this forum. | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
This map is more solid and more interesting than whirlwind. It's better than whirlwind. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2160 Posts
| ||
| ||
OSC
Masters Cup #151: Playoffs
Percival vs Shameless
LetaleX vs YoungYakov
Nicoract vs Gerald
GgMaChine vs ArT
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Clem vs MaxPax
herO vs Solar
SHIN vs MaxPax
herO vs SHIN
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs SHIN
MaxPax vs Solar
Clem vs TBD
herO vs TBD
Lambo vs TBD
Rogue vs TBD
IPSL
TerrOr vs IJ_Terran
rasowy vs Hazorath
BSL
TerrOr vs OyAji
UltrA vs Gosudark
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Art_Of_Turtle vs KameZerg
Radley vs George
BSL
Artosis vs Dewalt
Ret vs Tech
SOOP
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
