|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/C68vK.jpg) Geo Pointv1.0 Made by: DrakePHOSE Published on: NA Playable Bounds: 116 x 178
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Elz3L.jpg)
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
This is my first map. I want it be a competitive map that plays out much like the BW map, Match Point. How the players control the high ground "pods", dictates how they will expand. The main-natural was based off OxyGenesis' Uncanny Valley.
Features
- One force-field wide ramp leadng into the natural. Safe for expanding in PvP.
- 1 sets of rocks and LOS blockers defending the wide entrance into the main. (You cannot warp past the rocks without vision)
- 2 unique options for 4th expansions. Gold (with no gas) from the 3rd, or Rich gas (with 6 mineral patches) from the high ground pod.
Concerns, Exploits, and Problems
Solved:
- Wall off on the top of the ramp leading out from the main. (Building blockers, takes 4 bunkers to fully wall)
- Rocks leading into main die too fast vs some all ins in PvZ. (Removed LOS blockers, added 2nd set of rocks)
- 2 entrances into 3rd very weak vs Stephano Roach-Ling Max. (Added 2 sets of rocks to ramps leading into gold >> removed 1 rock and made the other 5000 HP)
- IDK WTF to do with the corner expos. I wanted them to be islands but I'm not sure if anyone would take it as a 3rd or even as a 4th. If it's just the 5th or 6th, why make it an island? AHHHHHjfisudfusd'f
Unsolved:
- All-ins coming in from the gold. Zerg can't get a good surround because of the thin ramp.
Change Log
Older Changes+ Show Spoiler +v0.3 - I am now starting to keep track of changes as the map is complete enough for me to do so. v0.4 - Critters removed and small little changes to doodads. v0.5 + Show Spoiler [Pics] +- Small fine tuning to mineral fields. - Minor aesthetic touch ups and changes. - Added force fields to block the centre expantions. v0.6 - Optimized foliage. - Centre expansion completely reworked. v0.7-0.8 + Show Spoiler [Pics] +- Small patching issues fixed.
Latest Change
v1.0
- Complete rework of the island and rich gas layout. Anti 4 gate layout updated for HotS (added building blockers).
|
Why would youy ask people what they think if you specifically say you don't want to hear any thoughts about the balance of the map because no one can predict it? That's why we comment on the map....we tell you what will be bad and what is good based on what race has problems with what.
Drop the water - way too much strain on CPU for some systems. Either that or please close the bounds by a lot. Texture set looks, frankly, really ugly. Try to find a set that synergizes more than that. Or make a custom tileset that isn't all agria.
And some of the base layout/chokes need fixing but I'm not an expert on that.
|
On September 15 2012 09:17 Drake Merrwin wrote:
I DON'T WANNA HEAR "THIS MAP IS BAD FOR ZERG RACE CUS TOSS HAS EASY THIRD!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"
THAT DOESN'T HELP ME MAKE IT BETTER.
But it does.
Those problems which are only found after large numbers of games are the last thing you should worry about. What you should be worried about are the more obvious dynamic problems of a map, which you may not see at first, and is why getting feedback here is crucial for that. Competitive mapping isn't something you just hop into and dominate, it's something you have to work on a lot. The maps which won the Team Liquid Map Contest and reached the ladder all had an immense amount of feedback going into them at all stages - most of it regarding things such as the third base or other such dynamics. It's something you have to work into your process as a mapmaker.
|
I predict the map will be bad for zerg.
|
Removed rocks from corner expos. Added force fields to block. Zerg won't be able to do ground attacks to that expo till hive. Protoss get massive units the fastest out of all the match ups. Terran's only massive ground unit is the Thor (even in HotS).
IDK if this is good or not but it seems better then just rocks. It looks like a much better choice as a 3rd and even 4th but still acts like the pseudo islands I want.
|
it's quite hard to tell what's going on from the overview due to low quality jpeg and the textures. I like the idea of a forcefield island but it's hard to tell the expansion path from the overview currently which makes giving specific feedback difficult.
|
On September 21 2012 21:09 OxyGenesis wrote:
it's quite hard to tell what's going on from the overview due to low quality jpeg and the textures. I like the idea of a forcefield island but it's hard to tell the expansion path from the overview currently which makes giving specific feedback difficult.
Sorry. I'm trying but the image never comes out good.
I'm using fraps because the export image option is giving me worse AND a format I can't upload or view (.tga I think).
Fraps can't get a higher res image ether.
|
On September 21 2012 21:25 Drake Merrwin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 21:09 OxyGenesis wrote:
it's quite hard to tell what's going on from the overview due to low quality jpeg and the textures. I like the idea of a forcefield island but it's hard to tell the expansion path from the overview currently which makes giving specific feedback difficult. Sorry. I'm trying but the image never comes out good. I'm using fraps because the export image option is giving me worse AND a format I can't upload or view (.tga I think). Fraps can't get a higher res image ether.
try pressing 'v' to turn on game graphics and then using the map image function to make a .tga, you'll need to convert the .tga to a .jpeg but any graphics program should be able to do that. I use a mac so I don't know if the windows default image viewer can do it but it should be solvable with a little googling.
|
On September 21 2012 23:07 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 21:25 Drake Merrwin wrote:On September 21 2012 21:09 OxyGenesis wrote:
it's quite hard to tell what's going on from the overview due to low quality jpeg and the textures. I like the idea of a forcefield island but it's hard to tell the expansion path from the overview currently which makes giving specific feedback difficult. Sorry. I'm trying but the image never comes out good. I'm using fraps because the export image option is giving me worse AND a format I can't upload or view (.tga I think). Fraps can't get a higher res image ether. try pressing 'v' to turn on game graphics and then using the map image function to make a .tga, you'll need to convert the .tga to a .jpeg but any graphics program should be able to do that. I use a mac so I don't know if the windows default image viewer can do it but it should be solvable with a little googling.
I had the game graphics on already.
I didn't know you could convert it. Thanks. I'll try but I know from the preview that the program blurs anything under water. Which is fine for a map who's main aesthetic is not water. =(
|
I'm completely reworking the aesthetics. After that the map is pretty much done. Preview:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DcYXx.jpg)
|
Ok well it might be "done" in your eyes but nobody will ever play it due to the extreme imbalance and ugly textures.
|
Hi, just wanted to suggest again that before you focus on aesthetics, you might focus a lot more on proportions. Aesthetics do differentiate the top tier melee maps from eachother but before all of that the quality of melee maps are determined by proportions. There is a lot of deadspace in your map that serves no purpose. If you look at top tier maps today they have almost no deadspace (except where specifically allocated), and the height tiers are set in such a way that you achieve a very interesting spacial dynamic without a lot of extra space. You might experiment with layering tiers on top of eachother instead of having chokes surrounded by deadspace, for a first.
Secondly, it's best to avoid rocks for as long as possible UNLESS you have an interesting dynamic that can't work without rocks. And even then I'd question if a dynamic with rocks is better than one without.
The middle bases are effectively useless considering their location...The layout/progression of your bases is very unorthodox and is confusing to the eye. You have a lot of clutter/doodads which border the central pods and are effectively limiting the value of controlling said pods.
Trying to keep the butthurt to a minimum, but you really should consider why you do things instead of just cobbling things together and calling it a map.
That is, of course, if your goal is to improve in competitive melee map-making.
|
Drop the water - way too much strain on CPU for some systems.
This is actually a myth; I've tested a map with a TON of water (a little more than this, even) on a really old computer (any crappier and the comp wouldn't have been able to run SC2, -period-) multiple times with no difference in performance vs. any other map. I'm not sure where or when this rumor started, but it doesn't seem to be true.
|
On October 18 2012 03:22 Jermman wrote:
Ok well it might be "done" in your eyes but nobody will ever play it due to the extreme imbalance and ugly textures.
Thank you for your well thought out, constructive, and informative criticism. It has really helped me in improving the map. Greatly.
On October 18 2012 03:32 Qwyn wrote:
Hi, just wanted to suggest again that before you focus on aesthetics, you might focus a lot more on proportions. Aesthetics do differentiate the top tier melee maps from eachother but before all of that the quality of melee maps are determined by proportions. There is a lot of deadspace in your map that serves no purpose. If you look at top tier maps today they have almost no deadspace (except where specifically allocated), and the height tiers are set in such a way that you achieve a very interesting spacial dynamic without a lot of extra space. You might experiment with layering tiers on top of eachother instead of having chokes surrounded by deadspace, for a first.
Secondly, it's best to avoid rocks for as long as possible UNLESS you have an interesting dynamic that can't work without rocks. And even then I'd question if a dynamic with rocks is better than one without.
The middle bases are effectively useless considering their location...The layout/progression of your bases is very unorthodox and is confusing to the eye. You have a lot of clutter/doodads which border the central pods and are effectively limiting the value of controlling said pods.
Trying to keep the butthurt to a minimum, but you really should consider why you do things instead of just cobbling things together and calling it a map.
That is, of course, if your goal is to improve in competitive melee map-making.
Dead space? You mean like Ohana (behind the 3rd and 4th)? Saying my maps "proportions" are bad doesn't tell me anything at all. While I agree with you that dead space is bad. My reason is not, "dead space is bad just cus." My reason is that terrans can lift building and cause draws. However is this instance, I need dead space because without it I would have to tighten the map up from top to bottom, which would make the map completely different. I would also encourage you to check out a thread that discussed dead space behind the mains. You would be surprised that most people preferred more space.
Rocks? You mean like Cloud Kingdom (4 rocks), Ohana (4 rocks), and Daybreak (3 rocks)? My map has 4. Rocks allow me to control how players expand and move their armies during the different parts of the game. Ohana has rocks at the natural allowing a the player to safely expand to their natural then, if they chose, to kill the rocks and have a smooth path to their 3rd. This is really good. On my map, the rocks at the third where placed because I found the Stephano roach max to be scary without the rocks. Which you would know if you actually read the OP.
Instead you choose to say things that do not help me at all and sum up my map to be "things clobbered together".
Yes my goal is to improve is map making, so please give me something actually helps me. Like explaining how the fuck the doodads (which do not block anything at all) make the pods less effective, because that statement doesn't make any sense. Thank you.
On October 18 2012 03:59 Fatam wrote:This is actually a myth; I've tested a map with a TON of water (a little more than this, even) on a really old computer (any crappier and the comp wouldn't have been able to run SC2, -period-) multiple times with no difference in performance vs. any other map. I'm not sure where or when this rumor started, but it doesn't seem to be true.
Yeah. In my experience so far, the most taxing thing you can put the lighting that casts shadows. Floodlights for example.
|
Look, everyone already told you what needs to be changed, you're just rejecting it. You're not cut out for this.
|
On October 18 2012 05:04 Jermman wrote:
Look, everyone already told you what needs to be changed, you're just rejecting it. You're not cut out for this.
What? Where? No has suggested anything in this thread yet. People commented on something that I said that was stupid (that I removed). OsyGenisis helped me with the image capture. And then you and Qwyn suggested nothing.
But I digress, I do reject nothing. I guess that's what the cool kids call a "slut". Right?
On topic. My editor isn't generating foliage. IDK why? I just need to finish up with the textures. I'll update as soon as I can.
|
LATEST SCREENSHOTS ADDED
I'm trying to go for this lush forest/jungle look with the volcanic elements acting in contrast. However, I'm finding a hard to fill the empty playable space. I can ramp up the foliage but I'm afraid if even a hellon shoots even 1 shot, computers will kick the bucket.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OQ3Nk.jpg)
|
very clever visual theme, terrible map layout!
why do you want to have gold bases in the centre, minimal choke sizes, bad spacing (too tight)...
Let's start with one really important point: why have such a main-nat layout to begin with? what are your ideas for the early game, e.g. ZvP?
|
On October 19 2012 01:18 Samro225am wrote:
very clever visual theme, terrible map layout!
why do you want to have gold bases in the centre, minimal choke sizes, bad spacing (too tight)...
Let's start with one really important point: why have such a main-nat layout to begin with? what are your ideas for the early game, e.g. ZvP?
Why do you think the layout is bad? The main-nat is for PvP. You can't warp past the rocks and the ramp leading into the nat is 1 ff wide.
|
so you build a PvP-only map? i mean this is cool, but it needs to be mentioned!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b6vK4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/srZ2w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NL1C1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hmocE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0IgZ4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6srRx.jpg)
