| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nnTk3.jpg) In my ongoing attempt to resuscitate the all-spawn 4 player map by fusioning rotational and reflective symmetry, I now bring you Cuatros Mesas. Published (v 0.5) on EU & NA servers 156x144 4 spawns (all enabled) 16 bases (2 center bases are 6m1hy) 2 watchtowers Angled overview:+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uSZdd.jpg) It's basically a reworked Rusty Cage but smaller. Let me know what you think. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
A little bit worried about Top vs Top and Bottom vs Bottom though - I would imagine Terrans expanding towards with PF (and possibly tanks) would be a bit tricky to stop? | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
Could you maybe move the tower one or two hexes to the bottom so you can sneak by larger armies? tl;dr: good job | ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
 That map looks otherwise nice, except i dont understand why didnt you go full reflective symmetry instead. You would have avoided so many slight imbalanced. Like top left, and bottom right bases have 3rd linear with main and 2nd, meaning its much easier to defend vs air harassment. Also their thirds seem to be farther away from the destructiple rocks, meaning its not as shootable by units from the other side. Also are the aesthetics not finished? You should tell that in the OP. | ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
About this map, I would say that the only read problem is vertical spawn positions, meaning 11 o'clock vs 7 o'clock and 1 o'clock vs 5 o'clock, because the 4th "normal" base is really close to both mains, and since it's on a higher ground, tank pushing would be strong, perhaps too strong, I don't know it's just my opinion. But generally I think the fact that all places on this map have at least two different entry points, so that's great for flanking for zerg, | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On July 22 2012 22:37 sorrowptoss wrote: I just want to point out something in the map creation community. Besides this map, and very few other maps, there are only protoss-based maps that are created. I mean, I don't know but map creators seem to prefer the color schemes and textures of protoss-based maps, but it would be nice if there were more maps like this. Protoss or Xel´Naga maps are easier. You can do a pretty protoss map faster than a terran map. I myself don´t want to do zerg details because in my opinion the map would need to be creeped, which would confuse the crap out of everyone. | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
I think the close ground positions (vertical spawns) are going to be too close by ground. Also I don't like the middle expos being gold- terran is the most powerful race to take middle bases and golds already favor terran because their army is so mineral heavy. [edit] Actually I think horizontal spawn positions are going to be bad for TvZ beause Terran (and Protoss in PvZ) can take the center expo and make it very difficult for Zerg to do anything. Most of the pro players these days say forward expansions are very Terran favored. | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
Thanks for all the feedback guys! I'll try and fix those issues and make it less boring  Next tho, is testing - see if I can get some Masters terran to PF push thru forward bases and listen to some complaints. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
It's nice to see a standard map with standard aesthetics that just looks like it.. works. My only complaint is that each natural has small spots around the cliff edges which drop down, and it almost looks like you could hide a reaper at 7 o'clock. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:52 Chargelot wrote: This map is incredibly standard. And that is the single greatest compliment I have ever given to a map. The more simplistic (sorry if that sounds harsh) texture patterns makes everything easily discernable, and while the expansion progression may be linear, this is also true of pretty much every ladder map. It's nice to see a standard map with standard aesthetics that just looks like it.. works. My only complaint is that each natural has small spots around the cliff edges which drop down, and it almost looks like you could hide a reaper at 7 o'clock. This map does not have standard aesthetics, this has no aesthetics. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10155 Posts
On July 22 2012 22:37 sorrowptoss wrote: I just want to point out something in the map creation community. Besides this map, and very few other maps, there are only protoss-based maps that are created. I mean, I don't know but map creators seem to prefer the color schemes and textures of protoss-based maps, but it would be nice if there were more maps like this. About this map, I would say that the only read problem is vertical spawn positions, meaning 11 o'clock vs 7 o'clock and 1 o'clock vs 5 o'clock, because the 4th "normal" base is really close to both mains, and since it's on a higher ground, tank pushing would be strong, perhaps too strong, I don't know it's just my opinion. But generally I think the fact that all places on this map have at least two different entry points, so that's great for flanking for zerg, 4th base wouldn't be taken then. They would continue to expand horizontally, breaking the rocks to access the next base. imo, Terrans is really strong on this map. Considering they have PFs, they could expand horizontally if there were horizontal spawns and slow tank push across the map. Same thing with vertical. Terran could take both the 9/3 base and the corresponding gold bases with PFs. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On July 23 2012 04:28 Aunvilgod wrote: This map does not have standard aesthetics, this has no aesthetics. The only thing this map is missing is foliage (including placeable objects) and something around the edges. But you get the idea that he's not going for the extremely complicated textures of the former version, Rusty Cage. Compare to: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/b/ba/Shakuras_Plateau_2.0.jpg) Which has an incredibly simplistic texture set, without unnecessary doodads or texture switching ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/8/86/Entombed_Valley.jpg) Extremely simplistic aesthetics, only with foliage and plant doodads. ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/b/bc/CondemnedRidge-550.jpg) etc etc etc. The map isn't exactly aestheticless, it's just missing the final touches. It needs a fancy non-playable area, and some doodads. But it's not exactly a blank canvas: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sBXbP.png) Sure, from here he could go completely crazy with it and make it completely unreadable like Rusty Cage, But at least in its current state, the minimalistic texture set works nicely. edit: I'm using foliage as both literal foliage and just "plant life", like doodad trees. Sorry if it's confusing. | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
with awesome deco. I often go too far with deco, making layout adjustments really complex. On the other hand it's hard to get useable map test feedback on a blank map.You guys have adressed the issues that I wasn't sure about plus put light on some additional stuff I wasn't aware of. That's what I wanted, so thanks! | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
Cuatro Mesas? Four tables? Weird name for a map xP At first, I thought it was once again similar to my map, Underwater Paradise, but realized that it's not. Phew. Please no shifted reflective symmetry. REALLY no reason for that. I thought this map would be cross only, but if it's not, I don't think it'll work well. By the way I think gold bases are imbalanced. Also: 154x144? T.T Why would you do this. But, I want to thank you for not making a boring ass 2 player standard map. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 23 2012 08:30 kim9067 wrote: Hola. Cuatro Mesas? Four tables? Weird name for a map xP At first, I thought it was once again similar to my map, Underwater Paradise, but realized that it's not. Phew. Please no shifted reflective symmetry. REALLY no reason for that. I thought this map would be cross only, but if it's not, I don't think it'll work well. By the way I think gold bases are imbalanced. Also: 154x144? T.T Why would you do this. But, I want to thank you for not making a boring ass 2 player standard map. It's actually mixed symmetry. The main and natural are placed rotationally, the rest is closer to reflective. | ||
|
Xgorden
Sweden24 Posts
I think that there should not be gold bases in the middle, Zergs can easily take a fast gold as a third vs a protoss. It's already good in some cases on Antiga, so this is just way to strong IMO. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On July 23 2012 08:51 NewSunshine wrote: It's actually mixed symmetry. The main and natural are placed rotationally, the rest is closer to reflective. I know... Its a mix between rotational and reflective. The thing is you can make the reflective part completely symmetrical, yet he chose shifted. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 23 2012 14:20 kim9067 wrote: I know... Its a mix between rotational and reflective. The thing is you can make the reflective part completely symmetrical, yet he chose shifted. Well, the thing is, there's no actual reflection going on, it's more of a freestyle thing, like you'd do in a 2p map. So for all practical purposes, it's reflected, but it looking shifted or not isn't really an intentional thing. It doesn't really matter anyway. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Cuatro Mesas? Four tables? Weird name for a map xP "Mesa" can mean an elevated piece of land with cliffs on some or all sides. Similar words are "butte" and "plateau". Unless you were being weirdly sarcastic or something, in which case oh well.  @ the map, only major thing I would change are the watchtowers. It's not much fun (imo) if the watchtowers cover 100% of the possible attack routes (at least it looks like they do, maybe I'm wrong). I think someone already touched on this earlier but thought I would mention it as well. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
The other is the 3rd base is too hard when taking the 3 or 9. It's sooo far away and wide open between there and the natural. Basically protoss and terran have to take forward 3rd against zerg in horizontal adjacent spawns. To fix this, you could shrink the vertical dimension. In vertical adjacent spawns the rush distance is quite okay already. Generally the map is pretty open, which tends to force the terran and protoss to either all in or play extremely deathbally vs zerg. You could preserve the openness if you add some more long movement barriers (which we typically see as cliffs) but could very well be long lines of holes / trees / high ground strip. Mostly right now the obstacles are little negative space pods on the flat ground, or basic separations near bases. Perhaps best would be to keep the skeleton of this design and redo it with a completely different concept for the center? I like it anyway but it's not quite working atm. @seafood: try resuscitate, meaning revive, rejuvinate, bring back to life... aka make 4player rotational actually interesting and useful map type. which is a worthy cause. ^_^ | ||
|
DMR_Chane
23 Posts
thought the eastetics fail quite hard. the layout is good but put some work into the art style if you can! | ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
| ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
After some sweet PvZ masters testgames (huge thanks to Plexa & Glurkenspurk <3 ), I fix a lot of minor issues, and tightened the map up all around. I've also done some more texturing and doodads. The map is up on EU,( NA will follow asap). edit: mod plz change name to Cuatros Mesas, thanks! | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
