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.
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.
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 21:09 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 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. =(
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.
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.
Yeah. In my experience so far, the most taxing thing you can put the lighting that casts shadows. Floodlights for example.
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.
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.
On October 19 2012 03:29 Samro225am wrote: so you build a PvP-only map? i mean this is cool, but it needs to be mentioned!
????? I did.
On September 15 2012 09:17 Drake Merrwin wrote: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)
How does ONE feature of the map define what the map is played for?
PS: If you actually read the OP then you would see that I worry plenty about the other match ups.
On October 20 2012 22:55 Barrin wrote: The rush distance is ENORMOUS. Like really really really big. How big?
Why are all 4 entrances to the high ground pod positions blocked by rocks? Initially taking a 4th is going to be very hard.
Once you take the 4th, you also have a 5th and a 6th pretty much for free. You can put your army on the high ground pod and with just a little bit of scouting and minimal reaction time you can soundly defend all 6 of them without moving very much.
I'm sorry, but this is really bad. Good aesthetics though. Kinda like my first map ^^
WHAT? Non of the entrances of the pod are blocked. Those are LOS blockers. Those make it harder to get up there.
There are rocks at the gold that you can knock down to counter attack the 3rd.
Holy shit is the image not clear or something? WTF is going on?
PS: Can you link me to it. I wanna see your first map. =D
seeing the map in game I don't really like it at all. my main issue is the 2 gold bases in the centre of the map. Since they are right beside each other if you take one you automatically get to take the other, which just seems stupid.
The map also looks very prone to 3-base all ins because the first 3 bases are so close and the others are too far away.
What is the point of the LOSB on the ramps to the high ground pods? Ramps are already LOSB.
I like that you're thinking about additional incentives to take bases, but there are indeed some fundamental issues that other people have pointed out. I would recommend shortening the map considerably in order to reduce rush distances and make the map more compact in general (most of this could come out of the middle and the long paths to the gold bases). I would combine the two bases in the bottom right hand corner along the bottom, as they are currently both far away from the middle ground pod and close to each other, they have the issue of being hard to take at all but then easy to take both when you take one, as Barrin mentioned.
You could make the middle ground pod a high ground and therefore put the new combined corner base and the base just above the corner base right up against the high ground, again compressing the map and aiding with proportions, as well as solving this "hard base, free base" issue. Along this same line you could also make the middle area middle ground and push the edge of the third base terrain closer to the middle so that the base is still safe from siege tanks and such, but the map becomes more full and it helps zergs to defend this 3rd, encouraging an offensive push against a zerg to take a longer route in order to engage in a more favorable position/terrain structure (a very good thing imo).
I would also remove the bases from the center as they are essentially winners bases (both players can't each simultaneously hold one). I know that you wanted to encourage a choice between the gold and high yield gas bases in the center, but you don't achieve it here. I can't think of a modification that would work without having a map editor open, so I may come back to this later.
I would aso recommend spending some time working on your texturing around cliff edges. Usually mappers have a texture that they use on the top side of cliff edges that more closely resembles the cliff face, and use that to blend it in with the main texture on the high ground. You played around a little bit with semi-paths of cracked dirt, but this is neither subtle enough nor visible enough. Try using a more solid brush for the both the cracked dirt and the grass and instead of relying on blending try and work the edge of the grass texture so it looks like it could be growing out over the edge of the cracked dirt.
I like the semi-in-base expansion for PvP and don't think that it actually hurts other match ups, but would be happy to corrected on this point (Samro?).
I think the expansion path is actually pretty interesting and I may make a map re-working this into what I could see it being.
On November 06 2012 23:57 RFDaemoniac wrote: What is the point of the LOSB on the ramps to the high ground pods? Ramps are already LOSB.
I like that you're thinking about additional incentives to take bases, but there are indeed some fundamental issues that other people have pointed out. I would recommend shortening the map considerably in order to reduce rush distances and make the map more compact in general (most of this could come out of the middle and the long paths to the gold bases). I would combine the two bases in the bottom right hand corner along the bottom, as they are currently both far away from the middle ground pod and close to each other, they have the issue of being hard to take at all but then easy to take both when you take one, as Barrin mentioned.
You could make the middle ground pod a high ground and therefore put the new combined corner base and the base just above the corner base right up against the high ground, again compressing the map and aiding with proportions, as well as solving this "hard base, free base" issue. Along this same line you could also make the middle area middle ground and push the edge of the third base terrain closer to the middle so that the base is still safe from siege tanks and such, but the map becomes more full and it helps zergs to defend this 3rd, encouraging an offensive push against a zerg to take a longer route in order to engage in a more favorable position/terrain structure (a very good thing imo).
I would also remove the bases from the center as they are essentially winners bases (both players can't each simultaneously hold one). I know that you wanted to encourage a choice between the gold and high yield gas bases in the center, but you don't achieve it here. I can't think of a modification that would work without having a map editor open, so I may come back to this later.
I would aso recommend spending some time working on your texturing around cliff edges. Usually mappers have a texture that they use on the top side of cliff edges that more closely resembles the cliff face, and use that to blend it in with the main texture on the high ground. You played around a little bit with semi-paths of cracked dirt, but this is neither subtle enough nor visible enough. Try using a more solid brush for the both the cracked dirt and the grass and instead of relying on blending try and work the edge of the grass texture so it looks like it could be growing out over the edge of the cracked dirt.
I like the semi-in-base expansion for PvP and don't think that it actually hurts other match ups, but would be happy to corrected on this point (Samro?).
I think the expansion path is actually pretty interesting and I may make a map re-working this into what I could see it being.
Meh. You have some interesting points but you, like many, have failed to explain why a bigger map is bad. Non all in aggession is better and all ins are worse. I heard that's good.
In my testing the LOS blockers make the ramp far more of a challenge to move through and spreed creep up to. One of my zergs told me that it was to powerful because he had such a hard time getting his tumors onto the high ground vs hellons.
I see where you're coming from on the textures but the trees look like ass on the red. And I found that the more red I added the more it pushed away from the look I wanted. I still think the textures and simple and at times bland. Other suggestions are welcome.
The winners bases in the centre. Good point. I'll be back for that one.
The free island is something I want to remove but IDK what to do with that space as I do not want terrans to get away with shit in base trades. I might just path block the air space????
On November 06 2012 23:57 RFDaemoniac wrote:You could make the middle ground pod a high ground and therefore put the new combined corner base and the base just above the corner base right up against the high ground, again compressing the map and aiding with proportions, as well as solving this "hard base, free base" issue. Along this same line you could also make the middle area middle ground and push the edge of the third base terrain closer to the middle so that the base is still safe from siege tanks and such, but the map becomes more full and it helps zergs to defend this 3rd, encouraging an offensive push against a zerg to take a longer route in order to engage in a more favorable position/terrain structure (a very good thing imo).
Why not just help me make it better? If you really want you can add me on skype. We could chat it out if you really wanna commit as much is to try and do it better your self. =(
Bigger maps actually make non all in aggression worse because there is a much bigger defenders advantage re unit production. It also is a significant buff to zerg for the same reason, since zergs often delay unit production until an opponent moves out. One could argue that this is made up for by the presence of such extreme chokes on the map but the zerg style that is powerful nowadays is Infestor/Broodlord, which doesn't really weaken with chokes and is probably in fact buffed by the air space that you create with these chokes. You could argue that the combination is too slow to be as affective on such a large map but this will just lead to a base trade which is fine for a zerg because they can carry crawlers with them and is generally undesirable imo.
See my version for the implementation of the combined corner bases without too much air space, as well as the implementation of a mid ground middle and high ground pods (using all 3 levels of terrain, low, mid, and high instead of just low and mid). I changed the main/nat setup but you should see where they fit in terms of your map quite easily.
Part of why I made a version was to show you the changes that I suggested, but I also think that open source is the best way to produce the best of anything, and seeing as I liked some of your ideas but not others I decided to take it into my own hands.
I've PMed for skype details and would definitely be down to talk in more detail.
v1.0 - Complete rework of the island and rich gas layout. Anti 4 gate layout updated for HotS (added building blockers).
Now the only problem with the map is immortal sentry. But I think that will be a problem no matter what. Blizzard likes to keep units that are bad for the game no matter how many more qualified people say other wise. =(
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/C68vK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Elz3L.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DcYXx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OQ3Nk.jpg)
