|
Created by the fastest ProAm team in the land: NullCurrent and SigmaFiE
Uploaded to NA as "DF Bazaar"
Version: 1.2
Will soon be available on EU
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8N9yc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HjwOn.jpg)
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +
Old Version
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XzWMA.jpg) Bazaar
Ver: 1.0
By: SigmaFiE (aka Odysseus)
Uploaded: [NA] Overview ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eOFiM.jpg) Various Shots+ Show Spoiler +
Change Log
1.2
+ Show Spoiler +- Lyote removed
- Watchtower refined
- Map Info/Arcade Info updated
Playable Bounds: 152 x 152
Textures: Aiur Small Bricks, Aiur Dirt, Aiur Tiles, Aiur Rock, Aiur Grass, Aiur Large Bricks, Monlyth Tiles, Mar Sara Dirt Cracked
Comments and Criticisms Welcome.
|
There's no room to build things :/
Feels like you need to increase the size of either the mains or the natural
|
Seems pretty solid. I think the area around the thirds could use some work. You need a good bit of space right around the base itself so you have some area to move around the base. I think the two elevated blocks should be merged and moved to the middle between the two bases, making the whole thing a bit simpler and giving a bit more room to make defending those bases a bit more comfortable.
Also you should make sure that the chokes leading into each of the thirds from the outside are the same size, and that the thirds are equidistant. At least it seems like you are going for equal thirds. As is it feels quite a bit easier to take the third tucked up against the main than the other one.
Edit: You could increase the size of the main like iGrok suggested, and in doing so you could push that third a bit further away to help balance it.
|
It's really pretty, and it has cool paths. It's a little too choked around the 3rd bases. I don't think the mains are too small, but making them bigger would be fine. If you tear it apart to rebuild it slightly larger, you might consider adding more substantial negative space to separate the areas of the map more, instead of little islands and strips of cliffs. I understand why you don't have them here, because there's no room. Kudos for making such a promising compact 4player rotational.
|
I really like the paths from the thirds into the mid. Cool design there
|
I like the middle and the thirds
I also agree that the mains should be a little bigger, and that having the third connected to the main is annoying because of marine/medivac stuff. Gfire's got the right idea 
However I don't think the thirds have to be equidistant (the definitely aren't), but without spawn restrictions it might be a little unfair for a player who spawns clockwise to another player.
|
shouldn't the title be '[M] (4) Bazaar'?
Solid map. I think the whole map could do with being a bit bigger so open up some of those chokes and agree with the other's suggestions. Aesthetics look good, but fairly standard. Overall, a very nice map. Would be interesting to see how close positions plays out.
|
best new map for the moment. Congrats!
|
There's just too much grass/brick variation.... I think all the high grounds should have grass/brick, and the low ground should be grass/dirt
|
United States10149 Posts
absolutely love this map. great optional thirds with 4ths right next to them. it sucks when people make optional thirds, which is great, but then they dont have a reasonable 4th. no problem here. absolutely amazing map.
|
we already have this, it's called whirlwind
|
On July 12 2012 06:05 Melty Butter wrote:
we already have this, it's called whirlwind
It's quite similar, but there is a fundamental difference with the 3rd's and 4th's here, which have more choke points next to them. That is perhaps something to change, which is up for debate, but even so, it's a solid map that shows a good deal of progress for the mapmaker. All that aside, I tend to be against calling 2 maps identical, as the details can make all the difference. Just as 2 build orders in the game can be very similar yet have different strategies to them, 2 maps can be very similar, but still play entirely differently.
|
On July 12 2012 06:05 Melty Butter wrote:
we already have this, it's called whirlwind
What an ignorant thing to say. You can't see the obvious differences?
|
Yeah it's definitely a great map and all but apart from the additional little obstacles between the 4th and 3rd of each spawn quarter it's identical to Crux Whirlwind. And I don't think that all the other little minor differences like the main ramp being rotated 90 degrees or the 4ths having grouped gasses instead of separated ones is going to have any impact at all. That said, it's an excellent map, I'm just saying it should be called Whirlwind 1.1.
|
On July 12 2012 07:09 Melty Butter wrote:
Yeah it's definitely a great map and all but apart from the additional little obstacles between the 4th and 3rd of each spawn quarter it's identical to Crux Whirlwind. And I don't think that all the other little minor differences like the main ramp being rotated 90 degrees or the 4ths having grouped gasses instead of separated ones is going to have any impact at all. That said, it's an excellent map, I'm just saying it should be called Whirlwind 1.1.
Look closer. The gaps in terrain next to the 3rd's completely change how you'd go about defending them. Honestly try and tell me holding off an attack on Whirlwind's 3rd base is just the same as it is here. Aside from that, all the differences add up. If we shut down every map that's similar to another map, the mapping community would dry up fast.
|
The pathing on this map is totally different from Whirlwind. The only similarities are than it is a 4p rotational map with a ramp down from the nat and ramps up to the thirds. But the rest is completely different.
|
On July 12 2012 07:15 NewSunshine wrote:
Look closer. The gaps in terrain next to the 3rd's completely change how you'd go about defending them. Honestly try and tell me holding off an attack on Whirlwind's 3rd base is just the same as it is here. Aside from that, all the differences add up. If we shut down every map that's similar to another map, the mapping community would dry up fast.
hold the phones guys, on this version of whirlwind the place where you defend your third is slightly closer to the nexus! I think we're onto a winner here!
On July 12 2012 07:16 Gfire wrote:
The pathing on this map is totally different from Whirlwind. The only similarities are than it is a 4p rotational map with a ramp down from the nat and ramps up to the thirds. But the rest is completely different.
+ Show Spoiler +
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.
|
On July 12 2012 08:45 Melty Butter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:15 NewSunshine wrote:
Look closer. The gaps in terrain next to the 3rd's completely change how you'd go about defending them. Honestly try and tell me holding off an attack on Whirlwind's 3rd base is just the same as it is here. Aside from that, all the differences add up. If we shut down every map that's similar to another map, the mapping community would dry up fast. hold the phones guys, on this version of whirlwind the place where you defend your third is slightly closer to the nexus! I think we're onto a winner here! Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:16 Gfire wrote:
The pathing on this map is totally different from Whirlwind. The only similarities are than it is a 4p rotational map with a ramp down from the nat and ramps up to the thirds. But the rest is completely different. + Show Spoiler +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.
You. The minute differences in the lines you've so thoughtfully drawn all affect the gameplay. A map is not just an overview, contrary to popular belief, everything that appears small and insignificant in an overview becomes important once it's being used in-game. Pointing out similar shapes isn't going to win you any points in a community that strives to create better and better maps, but rather makes you sound like you've come from BNet to complain some more.
Please try to keep any further comments directed towards potential improvements upon the map's design. No map is perfect, that's not why we post here.
|
If this map is a thing that the map maker made to experiment with whirlwind then I would be ok. But I don't think its drastically different to whirlwind. For a starter these maps would never be used in the same ornament same as golden valley. Also even if maps are considerably different you have to knowledge the other map such as Mobs Marshall Area by team crux by eastwindy. The maps are quite different but at least he admitted that the maps are similar and will play out similarly.
That being said I don't think this map will have MAJOR differences in play.
Sorry, its what I think from my opinion.
|
On July 12 2012 09:17 kim9067 wrote:
If this map is a thing that the map maker made to experiment with whirlwind then I would be ok. But I don't think its drastically different to whirlwind. For a starter these maps would never be used in the same tournament same as golden valley. Also even if maps are considerably different you have to knowledge the other map such as Mobs Marshall Area by team crux by eastwindy. The maps are quite different but at least he admitted that the maps are similar and will play out similarly.
That being said I don't think this map will have MAJOR differences in play.
Sorry, its what I think from my opinion.
Crap sorry quoted instead of editing
|
It might not be dramatically different from Whirlwind, it is similar to some extent, but read:
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.
|
Wall of Text
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.
|
I have played 3-4 games on it!
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!
|
Cool map. I do think it's very similar to Whirlwind but there's no reason both can't exist.
|
On July 12 2012 08:45 Melty Butter wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
|
Overall big thumbs up from me. I'm glad to see these whirwind-inspired maps (with the 4-base layout) and see what new things can come from them.
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!
|
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*
|
On July 13 2012 14:20 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +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*
Didn't like them.
*throws back*
|
On July 13 2012 14:36 eTcetRa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 14:20 NewSunshine wrote: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* Didn't like them. *throws back*
ew.
|
On July 13 2012 15:07 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 14:36 eTcetRa wrote:On July 13 2012 14:20 NewSunshine wrote: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* Didn't like them. *throws back* ew.
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.
|
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 think it's only a bit smaller than whirlwind, and that pretty much only means there's no gap between the main and third and the main is smaller.
|
You think about the map and judge by the overview. I worked on it and ran it through the analyser countless time. That makes a difference
Edit : And it's pretty funny that you out of all mappers would come out and say that 
|
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.
|
sorry about all the typing mistakes. gaveany note sucks at autochanging.
another reason Is that all spawns workk.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
If you think whirlwind is the first boring equidistant 4p rota... then just browse through this forum's history. I Don know if TPW Dylarian Shipyards has been published, but it does have equidistant thirds and is way way older. Do you think 4p rota is a recent style ? It's old, stale and figured out, leading to every map looking the same (such as yours and oxygenesis', there was no copy intended there). I think this map does a good job of staying solid (which whirlwind isn't, since its rush distances make it unbalanced) and having unique features, such as the pathing through forward chokes and the general openness/chokiness contrast - open and narrow places are clear, making positional play more interesting.
This map is more solid and more interesting than whirlwind. It's better than whirlwind.
|
Haha that centre is sooooo flankable
|
Created by the fastest ProAm team in the land: NullCurrent and SigmaFiE
These are the updates per the ProAm modifications made by NullCurrent and myself. Map has NOT been published as of yet in order to allow the original to be played for the Mapper's Monthly -- will update to Battle.Net most likely 3 days from now to incorporate changes.
Aesthetics (Imgur was being weird!)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I love it! It'd be great if you could put up screens of the upper part of the map as well, at some point.
|
I really like the new version, BTW. Cleaner in layout, and the aesthetics feel fresh.
|
Yeah it's cleaner looking, no doubt. Is there a xel'naga in the middle? I'm assuming so but I can't tell from the image. Anyway luuks guud, gj.
|
First version is definitely much better imo. I hope you will let the original version online for fans 
|
I like the changes quite a bit. Nothing drastic, but it looks and feels more open, which I think was the big problem with the original, but it still retains its defining features quite nicely. Glad you could get in on this to begin with though(or is it to end with? idk)
|
On August 05 2012 04:51 ScorpSCII wrote:
I love it! It'd be great if you could put up screens of the upper part of the map as well, at some point.
I will post some of those up. Imgur was weird when I was updating and failed a few of the uploads.
On August 05 2012 07:31 Fatam wrote:
Yeah it's cleaner looking, no doubt. Is there a xel'naga in the middle? I'm assuming so but I can't tell from the image. Anyway luuks guud, gj.
The tree in the center that is surrounded by LOS blockers IS the watchtower. If you look at the original post, underneath the "old verson" there is a pic of the tree lit up (but that is out of date as it does not have any of the new additions).
On August 05 2012 13:28 PandaZerg wrote:First version is definitely much better imo. I hope you will let the original version online for fans
First version is still up under the arcade labeled simply as "Bazaar" -- the updated version is labeled "DF Bazaar". Please refer to OP (the red line)
|
I do like the original more honestly.
That said, the similarities with Whirlwind are apparent, not that that's bad, it's about as similar to Whirlwind as Metropolis is to Metalopolis. Even the textures are some-what similar to Whirlwind. I like both versions more than Whirlwind though.
|
Just a couple minor updates. Uploaded to NA as Ver 1.2. Will soon be uploaded on EU both in standard form as well as part of the Starbow mod by Kabel.
1) Lyote removed (it was bugg'ing)
2) Watchtower double checked for issues -- seems to be in working order
3) Map Info/Arcade Info updated on NA
Original (Bazaar) has been removed from my published list for the time being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ejRGe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dCzOH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/29whC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K6NKy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/drusj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0UGdW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HNLZJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y4zOp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Vaeiw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fbQO6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t2lBv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2kYRp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mVLuq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GtLd0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qWxfr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zhnkh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7MpGP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jXYDl.jpg)
