| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
The_Templar
your Country52797 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 Country52797 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 Country52797 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 Kingdom12022 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 Country52797 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 Country52797 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 Country52797 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 States2404 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
| ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
On September 23 2012 13:58 iamcaustic wrote: 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. Its not that bad. The proportions are slightly off, but they do not destroy the map. You overrate proportions. An uninspired design? Tell me more about your original ideas... The community is so narrow minded and not open for experiments that you really can't create anything truly original. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
I mentioned the creep tumor thing because it seemed like you were struggling with map proportions. Almost all your maps have really big mains, and lot of airspace. I've seen almost all your maps, I've been to your map thread, and saw your maps. You said you made this on a midnight so it's bad? Why did you upload it here? Why didn't you improve it and then post it? And if you try to copy some of the official maps, it can be really helpful for future maps. If you're improving, which I'll believe you, please spend more time on your maps and then post it on TL. Good luck | ||
|
KapsyL
Sweden704 Posts
On September 23 2012 18:14 Semmo wrote: Hi. I'll just post here one last time: I mentioned the creep tumor thing because it seemed like you were struggling with map proportions. Almost all your maps have really big mains, and lot of airspace. I've seen almost all your maps, I've been to your map thread, and saw your maps. You said you made this on a midnight so it's bad? Why did you upload it here? Why didn't you improve it and then post it? And if you try to copy some of the official maps, it can be really helpful for future maps. If you're improving, which I'll believe you, please spend more time on your maps and then post it on TL. Good luck Perhaps he uploaded it to see what other people think and maybe get some tips from other mappers? the map itself isnt that bad though.. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
Hi iamcaustic, how are you? I'm sorry to not give a valid argument, I've been sleeping a lot :0 I'm not sure the design is that bad (although my proportions might not be up to par). It is more unusual than most designs, so I'd see why you'd be nervous about it. Also, maps without aesthetics don't take so long, at least I don't think?  @wnio you will see the ideas in later maps, I reuse them a lot :D @semmo I have never taken more than 16 cumulative hours to make a map, start to finish :/ Making it when I'm tired may have led to really quirky things in the design. @monitor, nice early map :D :D That looks much better than my first 20 maps xD | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On September 23 2012 18:07 Aunvilgod wrote: Its not that bad. The proportions are slightly off, but they do not destroy the map. You overrate proportions. An uninspired design? Tell me more about your original ideas... The community is so narrow minded and not open for experiments that you really can't create anything truly original. Aside from under-rating how good (and conversely, bad) proportions affects a map, there was more said about why the map isn't very good than just that. As for original ideas, that depends what qualifies as original in your book. Perhaps original is borrowing elements from an older game and experimenting to see if the idea ports well into SC2; changing the idea of how third bases should work from the current "close and open" concept to a "far but choked/defendable" one. + Show Spoiler + Maybe original is building on such previous ideas and creating a new layout concept from it: third bases that are equivalent in distance and ease of defence on the ground, regardless of spawning locations. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dTn4Dl.jpg) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=348430 You might note, with this being one of my earlier maps posted to TL, that there are some proportion (and consequently, layout) issues related to this map. I might go back to adjust these issues, but for now I'm busy working on new maps. Just because someone posts a map with some problems doesn't mean it can't be identified to help the mapmaker identify and resolve them. I'm only harsh in my criticism in this thread because the issues are so overtly obvious that the OP could have easily just spent more time in the editor fixing them before publicly releasing the map. Or, perhaps original means taking really cool layout ideas and putting your own unique spin on it. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VgLyMl.jpg) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=366783 Inspiration from Cloud Kingdom's very positionally-oriented layout. The idea of having many different attack paths that span the length of the map, forcing players to keep an eye out for counter-attack opportunities and avoid simply walking past your opponent's army. Well, we all know how CK works. Also included is a more refined iteration of the alternative third base layout presented in the last two maps. Two possibilities are presented: one closer and far more exposed, and another slightly further and much more choked/defendable. Oh, and on the note of "spending more time in the editor to fix blatant issues", here is what this map originally was panning out to look like: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xz6K4l.jpg) As you can see, much was changed before the map was considered polished enough to post on TL. Or, finally, maybe original is simply taking pieces of a map layout that has been done before, but adjusting it to try and improve the concept. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nRLxGl.jpg) One of the current WIPs I'm polishing; normally wouldn't even consider posting on TL at this stage. The map itself is much further along than this screenshot shows, but I don't have a screenshot of its current progress. However, the layout hasn't changed much from what's shown there; most of the work done is texturing/aesthetics. And again, to give a demonstration of "spend more time in the editor", here's what the layout of this map looked like at first: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Lbs53l.jpg) There's nothing wrong with spending a little time working on getting map proportions right. Originality is quite a subjective concept, and many things people consider "original" in fact have inspiration pulled from other pieces of work. The iPhone is probably an iconic example of this: the phone itself was original to the point of revolutionary in the smartphone world when it was released in 2007. However, the ideas behind it weren't concocted out of thin air; touchscreen technology had been around for years, and Microsoft was (and arguably still is) at the forefront of it in terms of quality. The smartphone concept itself was already around, obviously. Web browsing wasn't a new idea, nor was playing music from a portable device. So on and so forth. Originality for the sake of originality isn't necessary or productive. It's about how you put things together to create a product that is good. If the product isn't good, identify what is bad, then go back and fix it. On that note, this map isn't good, I've given some reasons why it isn't good, and I leave it up to the mapmaker to go back and fix it. On September 23 2012 21:42 The_Templar wrote: @iamcaustic Hi iamcaustic, how are you? I'm sorry to not give a valid argument, I've been sleeping a lot :0 o_o? I am good, thank you (I hope you're well, also). What do you mean about not giving a valid argument? On September 23 2012 21:42 The_Templar wrote:I'm not sure the design is that bad (although my proportions might not be up to par). It is more unusual than most designs, so I'd see why you'd be nervous about it. Also, maps without aesthetics don't take so long, at least I don't think? I say it is bad because as you can see, there is only a single optimal path to the opponent's base, regardless if they're on 1, 2, or 3 bases. It is not until a player takes a 4th base that any alternative army movement becomes desirable. Even taking a map as simple in nature as Ohana: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XQynS.jpg) We can see that the map has two main paths in the centre of the map, separated by the high ground cliffs by the watchtowers, and connected again by an LOS blocked path in the dead centre. Even this offers a bit of choice as to which aisle to take, with each having their own advantages: Assuming you are the top spawn, taking the left aisle opens up opportunity to move into the 4th, walk down further and get direct access to the 3rd and natural, or even utilize the 4th's high ground as a fallback point to engage the 3rd. Taking the right aisle opens opportunities to cut off the opponent's army from their 5th, allowing you to snipe it, walk toward the opponent's natural, or simply be in a good position to put pressure on the main, generally through drops or air play. With all of that said, when we look at your map, everything prior to 4 bases utilizes the same, singular route. Once we hit 4 bases, then things get more dynamic, and once we hit 5 bases, we run into the issue where it's actually faster for your opponent to rally reinforcements to your 5th than it is for you. Perhaps an argument can be made that people will want to utilize the high ground when engaging the 3rd instead of trying to wedge in between the natural and the third. This is absolutely plausible, but not enough for me to consider the map strategic or inspired in any way. To iterate my point a bit better, here's an image: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dWbJOl.jpg) Just look at the sheer amount of utility given to a single attack path and position. When looking at (again, for example) Ohana, depending on the aisle you take you can generally perform 2 of the 3 example actions I gave. Either cut off the third/hit the natural or hit the natural/drop or blink the main. Never all of them unless you split your army in half, which significantly weakens a major push. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially). Yes the main is way too big. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On September 24 2012 02:28 EatThePath wrote: @iamcaustic: I realize the point you're trying to make and obviously this map needs a better center. But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially). Yes the main is way too big. It's certainly not wrong. Rather, which of those 3 options you choose depends on the opponent's army position, the matchup, and the specific all-in being performed. Do note that I'm referring to performing a 1 or 2 base all-in in that image. If we take the blink/obs PvT all-in as an example, that image completely applies. Blink harass into the main, blink out, hit the natural, move back, blink back into the main, etc. all from that positional area I circled. ZvP, how about 7 or 8 gate all-in when Zerg takes a quick third. You most certainly do just walk right in and take a strong position. FF the natural, claim your free third, move in for the win, all from that positional area I circled. TvT marine/tank 1 base timing. Same thing. Take that position, can hit the natural and/or start elevatoring into the main. The list goes on. Absolutely every single one of these examples utilizes the exact same position and exact same linear path to it to execute in this case. There's no thought process to it for the person performing the all-in. You just go. When discussing possible layout issues on a map, you can't simply assume both players are playing a passive macro game where attacks only occur once both have established 3 bases and have their armies positioned at that spot (which, as you note, would likely be the natural rally location). | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
On September 23 2012 13:58 iamcaustic wrote: 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. lol I just said it was a "solid start" aka a decent rough draft. Middle could be more interesting, mains reduced in size (and maybe the 4th/5th areas reduced in size/brought a tad closer to the 3rd), but those are easy changes. Once that is done + it has some decor, it will be fine. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 24 2012 07:01 iamcaustic wrote: It's certainly not wrong. Rather, which of those 3 options you choose depends on the opponent's army position, the matchup, and the specific all-in being performed. Do note that I'm referring to performing a 1 or 2 base all-in in that image. If we take the blink/obs PvT all-in as an example, that image completely applies. Blink harass into the main, blink out, hit the natural, move back, blink back into the main, etc. all from that positional area I circled. ZvP, how about 7 or 8 gate all-in when Zerg takes a quick third. You most certainly do just walk right in and take a strong position. FF the natural, claim your free third, move in for the win, all from that positional area I circled. TvT marine/tank 1 base timing. Same thing. Take that position, can hit the natural and/or start elevatoring into the main. The list goes on. Absolutely every single one of these examples utilizes the exact same position and exact same linear path to it to execute in this case. There's no thought process to it for the person performing the all-in. You just go. When discussing possible layout issues on a map, you can't simply assume both players are playing a passive macro game where attacks only occur once both have established 3 bases and have their armies positioned at that spot (which, as you note, would likely be the natural rally location). So you're saying, sometimes that's the only attack path and sometimes not. Okay... | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On September 24 2012 09:43 EatThePath wrote: So you're saying, sometimes that's the only attack path and sometimes not. Okay... Nah he's right, it's the only real attack path when doing an allin, because any other path takes too long, but another path is viable in longer-game scenarios where multi pronged attacks are easier and the opposing bases get closer to you. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 24 2012 10:27 The_Templar wrote: Nah he's right, it's the only real attack path when doing an allin, because any other path takes too long, but another path is viable in longer-game scenarios where multi pronged attacks are easier and the opposing bases get closer to you. Oh I don't disagree, there could be better routes. But every map has one generic all-in attack path: the shortest one. And by definition the main is easily accessible via blink or drop if you are near the natural, because main bases and naturals are usually proximate. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
Here no matter what you want to do you still only want to get to one location. It definitely opens up to become more interesting on 4 bases, but I agree that this is too late. I also agree that this has some proportion issues, but reasonable starts overall. I won't be up for doing the aesthetics on this or many maps in the future except for maybe some collaborative maps, I've recently had a change in how I look at the mapping scene (thread on this to come). If you get a skype I'd be more than happy to go over how I do texturing and doodads so that you can learn :D | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On September 24 2012 11:53 EatThePath wrote: Oh I don't disagree, there could be better routes. But every map has one generic all-in attack path: the shortest one. And by definition the main is easily accessible via blink or drop if you are near the natural, because main bases and naturals are usually proximate. I suggest you read my previous post that compared Ohana with this map. You could also look at a map like Cloud Kingdom. An attack path for an all-in is the shortest one that works for what you're trying to do. On many maps, including Ohana and Cloud Kingdom, that isn't always the exact same path every time. On this map, it is. Let's look at Cloud Kingdom in greater detail: I sometimes do a marine/hellion/viking 1 base all-in in TvT that goes to the third and elevators into the main to punish a gasless FE. The reason I go around to the third is to avoid being detected for as long as possible. If I wanted to bust into the natural, I wouldn't loop around to the third and instead head straight up the ramp closest to the tower. When I cause my opponent to retreat back into the main, my reinforcements head straight into the natural, which is a different path taken from my initial push. Doing this kind of all-in on this map, it'd be the same path taken. Initial push would just elevator and the reinforcements would just keep pushing forward up the ramp. Hitting a third with a bust (e.g. 7 or 8 gate vs Z) on Cloud Kingdom. You could choose to either bust right up the ramp at the third, or bust up the ramp at the natural to cut the opponent off between the nat and third. To do either on this map, you take the same path and move into the same spot. So on and so forth. It's good to see that the mapmaker recognizes this, though.  | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
I have finally dug myself out of the giant pit of schoolwork + minecraft that I found myself in back in October and gone back to mapmaking. I've made some updates to this map that hopefully improve its design. Some changes/issues I may fix the next time I have time: -Aesthetics -Ridges in the middle might make the map too tight -Some cliffs and ramps don't feel right. As always, I welcome feedback and discussion, but I won't have time to make drastic changes until I create maps for the mapmaking contest in May. | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
Exigaet
Canada355 Posts
On April 20 2013 11:32 lorestarcraft wrote: You may want to have someone help you with aesthetics on this one. I don't the water thing works out too good on maps. It obscures vision. It also really cuts down on FPS. I think that's the main reason the water was removed on Ohana before Blizzard put it on the ladder. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On September 23 2012 00:49 The_Templar wrote: 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? >_< I only have one suggestion to give: don't make map threads for maps that are clearly under-developed and have little time or effort put into them. We have the Work In Progress thread for this sort of content. You're also more than welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help or tips with your maps; I'm busy as of late so I may reply a bit slow sometimes, but I'll definitely reply. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On April 20 2013 19:06 iamcaustic wrote: I only have one suggestion to give: don't make map threads for maps that are clearly under-developed and have little time or effort put into them. We have the Work In Progress thread for this sort of content. You're also more than welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help or tips with your maps; I'm busy as of late so I may reply a bit slow sometimes, but I'll definitely reply. Look at this thread's date... Also you already replied here | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
Wait.. why... why is this map being posted on then? o_o Good eye, moskonia. Past midnight here, so I didn't notice. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On April 20 2013 19:51 iamcaustic wrote: Wait.. why... why is this map being posted on then? o_o Good eye, moskonia. Past midnight here, so I didn't notice. Surely in your long, illustrious career of mapmaking you've seen an old map get updated.  | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On April 20 2013 20:34 The_Templar wrote: Surely in your long, illustrious career of mapmaking you've seen an old map get updated. Yeh, but those are always at least a version 1.0 to 1.1, if not a later update. Any particular reason not to use the WIP thread for posting updates on a WIP? | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On April 20 2013 20:38 iamcaustic wrote: Yeh, but those are always at least a version 1.0 to 1.1, if not a later update. Any particular reason not to use the WIP thread for posting updates on a WIP? I was going to say, "This map was created before that thread" but then I checked and it appears the WIP thread was 3 weeks old when this map was posted. So, I'm not entirely sure why I made an entire thread for this map. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs Alone
Royal vs Barracks
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Clem vs Classic
herO vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Cure vs Rogue
Classic vs HeRoMaRinE
Cosmonarchy
OyAji vs Sziky
Sziky vs WolFix
WolFix vs OyAji
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Bonyth
SC Evo League
TaeJa vs Cure
Rogue vs threepoint
ByuN vs Creator
MaNa vs Classic
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lkXthl.jpg)
