EPT[G] Judging a Melee Map
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
If you're wondering, I'm doing UMS/Arcade mapmaking now omg teeeach me | ||
|
myRZeth
Germany1047 Posts
good "red suture" i m not sure whether this explains what i mean^^ | ||
|
BongChambers
Canada591 Posts
Gotta love MapMakers that really put time and effort into everything about thier map rather then just "ooo 4 base map and pretty doodads all over the place  " | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
On September 25 2012 02:47 BongChambers wrote: Maps are quite frankly top 3 most important things about SC2 or BW or quite frankly any RTS, its the battle feild in which all your battles take places, just ask any General or commanding officer how important knowing the Terrain and layout of the battleground is. Gotta love MapMakers that really put time and effort into everything about thier map rather then just "ooo 4 base map and pretty doodads all over the place "Hahaha I guess my maps don't get enough exposure  | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10470 Posts
FlaShFTW: Does he approve? a) if yes, good third. b) if no, bad third. Improve good list :D | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
 good job barrin | ||
|
GT350
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
Very concise, as large as it is. I'll spend some time thinking about whether you've missed anything this weekend. | ||
|
monitor
United States2409 Posts
All of these questions are asking about the map concept. Its what kind of gameplay you are trying to emphasize. Maybe the map addresses something in the metagame, like early Protoss third bases. Or the static three/four base layout that we see so often. Basically, there should be some purpose to the map, even if its something as simple as a learning map (developing editor skills) or to be perfectly balanced. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 25 2012 13:37 monitor wrote: The only I think you've missed is- What makes this map special? What maps the map different from the other maps in the map pool? What was the motivation behind making it? What gameplay does it feature? All of these questions are asking about the map concept. Its what kind of gameplay you are trying to emphasize. Maybe the map addresses something in the metagame, like early Protoss third bases. Or the static three/four base layout that we see so often. Basically, there should be some purpose to the map, even if its something as simple as a learning map (developing editor skills) or to be perfectly balanced. This might be the most important thing for mappers to consider once they are confident in their basic competence. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On September 25 2012 14:52 EatThePath wrote: This might be the most important thing for mappers to consider once they are confident in their basic competence. The main problem I see with this attitude is that people think they just have to try to get some cool features together and forget about tweaking all the small think, adjust chokes and spaces , consider flow. But yes, it is a smart strategic decision to make something cool, conceptual that stands out and looks like it will play different (just hope that people go beyond the two/three bases that you made standard And these two points: On September 25 2012 11:47 Plexa wrote: tldr; play the map before judging it good job barrin | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On September 25 2012 16:15 Samro225am wrote: The main problem I see with this attitude is that people think they just have to try to get some cool features together and forget about tweaking all the small think, adjust chokes and spaces , consider flow. But yes, it is a smart strategic decision to make something cool, conceptual that stands out and looks like it will play different (just hope that people go beyond the two/three bases that you made standard And these two points: Well you know I favor novelty. However I was seconding (what I understand to be) monitor's standpoint, which is that the best state of mind for mapmaking is where you consider the holistic experience of the map, the total outcome of what you've made. Having the vision to access that during the creative process and not in retrospect is the hardest thing there is about mapping; I'm not sure anyone is consistently at that level yet. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On September 25 2012 16:49 EatThePath wrote: Well you know I favor novelty. However I was seconding (what I understand to be) monitor's standpoint, which is that the best state of mind for mapmaking is where you consider the holistic experience of the map, the total outcome of what you've made. Having the vision to access that during the creative process and not in retrospect is the hardest thing there is about mapping; I'm not sure anyone is consistently at that level yet. we could call ourselves lucky if we all were on the level to make solid maps consistently  | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
we could call ourselves lucky if we all were on the level to make solid maps consistently Yeah definitely no one is there yet. Even some of the most "famous" community mapmakers have bad maps. For instance a couple of LSprime's most popular maps (got to be on GSL and hence the rest of the tourneys, although that has more to do w/ the prime mapmakers' connections than anything, but that's another story) weren't balanced: Atlantis Spaceship and Metropolis. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Brainiac_Br
Brazil14 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On September 25 2012 01:28 Barrin wrote: Six Separate Matchups - Mirror: ZvZ, PvP, TvT - Core: ZvP, ZvT, PvT This is the one thing that I think many people overlook.. since most people play one race, they really only have a feel for half of the matchups, and therefore, can't really imagine all the possibilities in their head. Voted for sticky, but if I were to add to this, it would be a section on specific map features, and what effect they have on the game. For example, a common mistake among new mappers is to use a cardinal ramp at the main, not realizing this makes it much harder to get up a proper wall off in time. Another example of a feature might be an in-base natural, or a discussion on half-bases and gold bases. However, it might not be practical to list all the possibilities, and it might be too easy to say "this never works", when there might be some yet untried thing that could make that feature work. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
[edit] Oh, whenever I read this I acquire a growing satisfaction with the comprehensive (if not exhaustive) coverage of important items, and then I read the request to reply with more but I can never think of any because you already listed the headlines. One of these days, perhaps. | ||
|
Wingman
France3 Posts
- The early-game rush distance may remain relevant as a mid/late-game rush distance if the map-control allows for it (Xel presence & location? Easily-defended base/area within the path?), but its main purpose is to be used by fast unit in small groups for quick harass, run-by and later on, flanks & the like. - The push distance is sometimes the exact same as the rush distance, but it may well partially/totally not be (so many edge cases coming ahead!). It all depends on the openness of the pathable area along this very path. That is, a rush path may work for a bunch of small units, but be totally unadapted when moving a large force around, because of, say, narrow ramps, corners & turns creating lines of units, wide and exposed areas you should not stay within, etc. It is all about "is it ok for me to move my 200/200 around here?". - Reinforcement paths are those paths which may allow to back a big push up using exposed shortcuts on the map; that is, paths you would not normally use as push paths because it is too risky or just don't cross enough distance, but can afford to use while you are pushing (and therefore have enough map-control to begin with). It mostly concerns terrestrial path but, who know, with HOTS we may see more aerian gameplay so any kind of path should be considered really. There are a *lot* of dynamics that can occur when providing up to these three kinds of paths on a map. It works on "static" maps but also on "dynamic" maps as well, such as the one featuring destroyable rocks with evolving path patterns. Other design factors may come in conflict with those path patterns, so it may not be as "open" in term of strategies as it could be by just examining this very aspect, but that's a given when it comes to map-analysis. For instance, a map with just distinct rush and push paths, maybe because of separate endpoints, may allow for a smart defender to come back while under heavy pressure by moving out and going for harass/trade base/flank/cutting reinforcement/whatever. A reinforcement path that can be transformed into a longer but viable push path, for instance by destroying rocks while the opponent is lacking on the map-control side of the game, can allow for unexpected attack/location timings. Etc etc. This also relates to the expansion pattern. Sometimes, a riskier expansion pattern may be rewarded by increased map-control, which itself results in the straight denial of an alternate, powerful push path, which means you will also be controlling one more than the opponent. Clever paths can break early-game symmetry. Well, there so much in this TLDR: think about rush path (as in small count of fast units) VS push path (as in large army moving around safely) VS reinforcement path (as in risky yet viable shortcuts you can afford to take while pushing). | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
| ||
