| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
Current Version: 0.1 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zkXXqP7.jpg) Old versions: + Show Spoiler [Version 0.0] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L2iGI.jpg) Bounds: 144x144 Bases: 10 standard Randomly Selected Textures: Cracked Dirt (Korhal, Monlyth, Zakhul'das), Korhal Small Tiles, Tyrador Grass, Ulaan Dirt, Meinhoff Rough Sand, Castanar Panels Change log: + Show Spoiler [Version 0.0 --> 0.1] + -Reduced size of main base -Changed natural, 3rd base layout -Added a couple more paths -Waited about 6 months -Added rocks and trees -That's a watchtower in the middle. . | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
I think the third might be a bit too vulnerable. Maybe you should rock the small ramp leading down to the third. I think the 5th is too close to the 4th. You should move it closer to the main next to it but make sure it is not in siege range. If you enable cliff merging you can make the mains cliffs natural. Would look pretty nice. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
I'm sorry to tell you this, but I think you're not improving. I think you should look at other official maps to help you map. Space Efficiency is one thing - If you use all the space of the map effectively, you can make a decent quality maps most of the times. Please learn manmade texturing and natural texturing - you can be unique, but aesthetically this kind of texturing looks sloppy and is unpleasant to see. Please use hatcheries and creep tumors to make sure the distances between bases is playable. Main -> natural: one creep tumor Natural -> third: 2 creep tumor Also please use harmonious textures if you can, and use some doodads. PS. You should change your settings. It looks like low settings right now. You should go to export map images for a straight up map picture. There are lots of image converters that can change the TGA to jpg as well. I think you can improve. Good Luck! | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
You overdid the main´s size. You should cut it to increase the amount of space in the center. Dont cut the part next to the natural ramp though. Really? It's 144^2, with a slightly long rush distance imo. Also how would that increase the space in the center? I think the third might be a bit too vulnerable. Maybe you should rock the small ramp leading down to the third. If I do that I'll make it 1500 HP so that it's not TOO easy to defend. With the rocks there's only one way into the third. I think the 5th is too close to the 4th. You should move it closer to the main next to it but make sure it is not in siege range. ok If you enable cliff merging you can make the mains cliffs natural. Would look pretty nice. It's korhal... T_T how do I change cliffs? @Semmo? :o Hi. I know you work hard on these maps, and that you've been mapping for a long time. I'm sorry to tell you this, but I think you're not improving. I think you should look at other official maps to help you map. Space Efficiency is one thing - If you use all the space of the map effectively, you can make a decent quality maps most of the times. I made this really late last night, I'd be surprised that it's coherant. Also it's better than you think... have you seen some of my maps? >_< Please learn manmade texturing and natural texturing - you can be unique, but aesthetically this kind of texturing looks sloppy and is unpleasant to see. not going to respond to this because I have no comment. Please use hatcheries and creep tumors to make sure the distances between bases is playable. Main -> natural: one creep tumor Natural -> third: 2 creep tumor I'm not stupid, I analyze maps all the time and I know how stuff is going to fit. You don't need to treat me like a beginner. Also please use harmonious textures if you can, and use some doodads. Again, I'm doubtful you've taken a close look at my maps  PS. You should change your settings. It looks like low settings right now. impossible You should go to export map images for a straight up map picture. did There are lots of image converters that can change the TGA to jpg as well. did I think you can improve. Good Luck! ...I did? Maps don't improve every single time, especially when a new idea is tested such as in this case. My maps have been improving for as long as I've been here, and I've made maps that immediately made people say "you aren't improving" and maps that made people say "you're improving a lot". I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong, but your comment seems silly. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On September 23 2012 00:49 The_Templar wrote: @Aunvilgod Really? It's 144^2, with a slightly long rush distance imo. Also how would that increase the space in the center? If I do that I'll make it 1500 HP so that it's not TOO easy to defend. With the rocks there's only one way into the third. ok It's korhal... T_T how do I change cliffs? Its not really gamebreaking but large mains mean pylons and cannon rushing. And they are ugly. Just like the textures. In the same tab as the textures there is a textbox with the cliffs. Click on the green cross and add any textures you want. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
Its not really gamebreaking but large mains mean pylons and cannon rushing. And they are ugly. Just like the textures. In the same tab as the textures there is a textbox with the cliffs. Click on the green cross and add any textures you want. Ok, thanks, will do later. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12064 Posts
Please use hatcheries and creep tumors to make sure the distances between bases is playable. Main -> natural: one creep tumor Natural -> third: 2 creep tumor I don't agree with this. You can't tell if the game is playable without it as nobody seems brave enough to try it at a high level. Protoss has warp ins to defend far bases, zerg has larvae (and there's no forcefield block to get in to the base) and Terran can build production at the base. I like mapmakers trying to change it up a little. Sure your space isn't used perfectly right now, but the bases are nicely laid out. I love what you've done with the fourth and fifth base, having the small ramp closer to the enemy to give a little bit more defenders advantage. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On September 23 2012 00:34 Semmo wrote: Space Efficiency is one thing - If you use all the space of the map effectively, you can make a decent quality maps most of the times. Holy shit. This crap again. Now what is "space efficiency"? It is avoiding airspace. But does airspace make the map worse? It is important to be aware of balance issues but I think this should be obvious. The other problem airspace MIGHT cause is boring gameplay. How would that happen? An example is metropolis. Because the ground attack paths are extremely easy to shut down the game often evolves into a lategame turtlefeast. Does a lot of airspace make a map automatically mean that are no viable ground paths? NO! Take a look at Ohana. Rotate it by 45 degrees. You now have a ton of airspace at the edges, the playable bounds have increased. What did actually change? Drops and airplay are A LITTLE more powerful. Does it FORCE you to go air? Are Mutas overpowered? Probably not. As there are more ways to avoid overlords Drops are slightly harder to stop, and thats important, while in mid air. But because very most drops will reach the opponent unnoticed anyway it will not really be noticeable. What did not change? Just about everything else. The ramp positions are different but not really breaking the map if done properly. The ground is still a viable attack route. The game will not evolve into crazy turtlefeasts. Then we have Atlantis spaceship. Does it have a lot of airspace? Yes, the top right corner is pure airspace. Does the map fail because of it? No. The ground distances are what makes the map slightly imba. You could cut all airspace by flightblockers on Atlantis Spaceship, the map would not improve. If you are of the opinion the now created triangle is not a good use of space I suggest you to make your maps be perfect circles from now on. I do not believe wasted space is a useful concept. What makes a map good? Balance and gameplay. The balance is hard to foresee and, as I explained above, not necessarily linked to the amount of airspace. Gameplay. A map with good gameplay encourages engagements at all times but does not shut down mid or lategame. To achieve a good gameplay the bases need to be reasonably safe but not too safe. There need to be alternative attack paths but terrand needs to be able to move out without dying instantly. You need to find a good balance. None of said points involve space efficiency. You can achieve all of them although having a TON of airspace on your map. What space efficiency can mean as well is the distribution of space. The concept that important areas of the map are supposed to have more playable space. Does this have an effect on balance? Of course not. Does this have an effect on gameplay? I do not believe so. While there needs to be sufficient space for a good gameplay a lot of unused space does not make gameplay worse. You can have a vivid, exciting game although having large areas not being entered by a single unit. An example for that is any 4 player map of your choice. If you spawn vertically on Entombed, is the other side of the map entered? hardly. Does the map suck? Maybe because of the safe third. Not because there is no action at the horizontal mains. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
This is definitely one of your better maps, building on the last one. Haven't looked at it closely but I'll post some detailed thoughts later. So far I like the 3rd base and transverse high ground concept. Your aesthetics are always one step away from crap but I can't really hold it against you, working on an older computer, and aesthetics aren't really important anyway until the layout is hammered out, especially if RFD is decorating for you. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On September 23 2012 05:55 EatThePath wrote: Not sure where that semmo post came from. This is definitely one of your better maps, building on the last one. Haven't looked at it closely but I'll post some detailed thoughts later. So far I like the 3rd base and transverse high ground concept. Your aesthetics are always one step away from crap but I can't really hold it against you, working on an older computer, and aesthetics aren't really important anyway until the layout is hammered out, especially if RFD is decorating for you. Macbook laptop good unit Looking forward to the detailed feedback :D edit: too -> to | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On September 23 2012 05:55 EatThePath wrote:especially if RFD is decorating for you. Oh, did he discover the intensity bar? | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On September 23 2012 06:16 Aunvilgod wrote: Oh, did he discover the intensity bar? What intensity bar? | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
I believe its called increment. Not sure, I use the german version. | ||
|
D4V3Z02
Germany693 Posts
| ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On September 23 2012 06:49 D4V3Z02 wrote: Soo much highground shenanigans make every Zerg cry! ;'( There are 5 entrances to the fourth/fifth cliff area. If Zerg can't get up that, then their opponent is easily quadrupling their supply count and they've already lost. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On September 23 2012 11:23 Fatam wrote: Map is a pretty solid start I think, I don't see any major issues. You gonna have RF do the textures again? If he's willing. He is very good at the textures, unlike myself. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On September 23 2012 11:23 Fatam wrote: Map is a pretty solid start I think, I don't see any major issues. You gonna have RF do the textures again? Honestly? There's a severe lack of understanding in general proportions (ridiculously obvious example: just look at the size of the mains compared to the rest of the map, then consider the map size), a lack of any strategy to the map (it's literally a straight path to take until each player hits at least a 4th base), and a very uninspired design overall. There's also a lot of wasted space around the edges, which ties into the proportion issue. These are just the dead obvious things to point out, too. Usually when I provide criticisms, I tend to give my own counter-arguments (either immediately or over the course of debate) and let the map maker decide which is the best path to move forward with. In this case, however, the map maker seriously should have spent a lot more time in the editor working on the layout concept and fixing many of the clearly blatant issues before presenting it publicly. The wording in the OP suggests the map was made within a single evening (and late at night, at that). Even half-decent maps aren't just made overnight. | ||
|
monitor
United States2409 Posts
This map has some issues, but the concept is a sound one. Yes the main is way too big. Yes the middle is too small. Yes the third base is too hard for P to hold in PvZ. Yes the fourth and fifth a too linear and crammed together. But the ideas work and its fundamentally ok- I would be concerned if it looked like this (one of my early maps). I think you'll continue to improve as long as you put in effort. Also I don't always follow creep tumors rules and that sort of thing. It depends on the map though. The things I mentioned above are what I suggest you change. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Qualifier
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
