|
On October 03 2014 05:56 iamcaustic wrote:You've successfully managed to encompass (almost) everything I hate in a map.  The only missing one is a map size of 160x160 or greater. I certainly won't play it, but I know a lot of lower-level players who just like to have fun who'd probably enjoy this.
Well its not for every one, but as for lower levels I cant say I agree. Are u a GM? I would not consider myself a pro but I have reached masters a couple of times, and at least high diamomd with all 3 races. As far as map making gos, I have made maps for a very long time, oc that was in broodwar, but I know I still have much 2 learn in sc2 map making. I am simply trying to map make a bit out of the box and see if it could work.
|
On October 03 2014 06:49 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 05:56 iamcaustic wrote:You've successfully managed to encompass (almost) everything I hate in a map. The only missing one is a map size of 160x160 or greater. I certainly won't play it, but I know a lot of lower-level players who just like to have fun who'd probably enjoy this. Well its not for every one, but as for lower levels I cant say I agree. Are u a GM? I would not consider myself a pro but I have reached masters a couple of times, and at least high diamomd with all 3 races. As far as map making gos, I have made maps for a very long time, oc that was in broodwar, but I know I still have much 2 learn in sc2 map making. I am simply trying to map make a bit out of the box and see if it could work.
I'm the same (hit Masters a couple of times, currently Diamond) but for Terran. I'm not sure what the relevancy is regarding that, though; my comment about lower-level players having fun is in reference to any extreme money map/mod, such as Big Game Hunters. I used to have tonnes of fun on BGH back in BW. The terrain concept for this map is extremely simplistic as well, so you're not dealing with any need of map presence or scouting awareness re: flanks and run-bys.
Put it all together and you have a map where the strategy and tactics of the game are heavily stripped down, which is very low-level friendly.
|
there is a reason we don't see cliffs above naturals. google "turbo newbie".
|
On October 03 2014 08:18 CycoDude wrote:
there is a reason we don't see cliffs above naturals. google "turbo newbie".
To be fair, I believe it's been pointed out that the cliffs are not pathable.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler + On October 03 2014 17:19 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 08:03 iamcaustic wrote:On October 03 2014 06:49 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:On October 03 2014 05:56 iamcaustic wrote:You've successfully managed to encompass (almost) everything I hate in a map. The only missing one is a map size of 160x160 or greater. I certainly won't play it, but I know a lot of lower-level players who just like to have fun who'd probably enjoy this. Well its not for every one, but as for lower levels I cant say I agree. Are u a GM? I would not consider myself a pro but I have reached masters a couple of times, and at least high diamomd with all 3 races. As far as map making gos, I have made maps for a very long time, oc that was in broodwar, but I know I still have much 2 learn in sc2 map making. I am simply trying to map make a bit out of the box and see if it could work. I'm the same (hit Masters a couple of times, currently Diamond) but for Terran. I'm not sure what the relevancy is regarding that, though; my comment about lower-level players having fun is in reference to any extreme money map/mod, such as Big Game Hunters. I used to have tonnes of fun on BGH back in BW. The terrain concept for this map is extremely simplistic as well, so you're not dealing with any need of map presence or scouting awareness re: flanks and run-bys. Map presence is going to be very important on this map because moving out down either side of the map without knowing your opponent isn't moving out down the other side of the map is going to be crucial. This is going to make controlling the towers (or at least one of the towers) very important if you're ever going to be able to move out of your base. I can't speak too much for Terran or Zerg strategy, but if you're playing Protoss on this map and you lose track of your opponent's army then you're risking ending up in a base-trade and that's not something that Protoss usually wants to happen. I think you're really selling this concept short by claiming that you don't need to deal with map presence/scouting.
Cheers, thats what I was trying to say, and what I was aiming for while making the map.
|
On October 03 2014 17:19 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 08:03 iamcaustic wrote:On October 03 2014 06:49 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:On October 03 2014 05:56 iamcaustic wrote:You've successfully managed to encompass (almost) everything I hate in a map. The only missing one is a map size of 160x160 or greater. I certainly won't play it, but I know a lot of lower-level players who just like to have fun who'd probably enjoy this. Well its not for every one, but as for lower levels I cant say I agree. Are u a GM? I would not consider myself a pro but I have reached masters a couple of times, and at least high diamomd with all 3 races. As far as map making gos, I have made maps for a very long time, oc that was in broodwar, but I know I still have much 2 learn in sc2 map making. I am simply trying to map make a bit out of the box and see if it could work. I'm the same (hit Masters a couple of times, currently Diamond) but for Terran. I'm not sure what the relevancy is regarding that, though; my comment about lower-level players having fun is in reference to any extreme money map/mod, such as Big Game Hunters. I used to have tonnes of fun on BGH back in BW. The terrain concept for this map is extremely simplistic as well, so you're not dealing with any need of map presence or scouting awareness re: flanks and run-bys. Map presence is going to be very important on this map because moving out down either side of the map without knowing your opponent isn't moving out down the other side of the map is going to be crucial. This is going to make controlling the towers (or at least one of the towers) very important if you're ever going to be able to move out of your base. I can't speak too much for Terran or Zerg strategy, but if you're playing Protoss on this map and you lose track of your opponent's army then you're risking ending up in a base-trade and that's not something that Protoss usually wants to happen. I think you're really selling this concept short by claiming that you don't need to deal with map presence/scouting.
That's literally moving one unit to the one tower while you move your army the other way. This is one of the most simplistic concepts in the game, and certainly not what I mean when I talk about map presence and scouting awareness. The fact you think there's any depth to that concept is mind-boggling to me.
EDIT: Here's probably the best (or at least most unique) example I could ever give to demonstrate what I mean. BoxeR vs. Hiya on Blue Storm; it's Brood War, but showcases all the different points beautifully.
+ Show Spoiler [BoxeR vs Hiya] +
Breaking it down, the terrain design of Blue Storm:
1. Allows for such a proxy by BoxeR to assert map presence and obtain a dominating forward position early in the game (but also preventable with safer, more thorough scouting). This map's design is so simplistic that any early game strategy short of FE or a standard 1-base all-in is a wasted effort. That's loss of strategy/tactics.
2. Allowed BoxeR to strategically block off alternate routes for Hiya to sneak vultures around. Establishing this required a forward position (map presence) combined with strategic forethought. Although this has died off a bit in modern HotS -- mainly due to map design -- it was a common occurrence even in SC2 (anyone remember ebay blocking the backdoor on Xel'Naga Cavern?). This map, however, offers no such benefits for holding a forward position; the best 'forward' position you can get is the half-way point to the opponent's base to control a watchtower, and that's not particularly beneficial as you leave the other side of the map exposed. The only thing you want to do on this map is sit on your 4 bases, max out, then make sure you push on the same side as your opponent's army to avoid a base trade. Fun for low-level games, but extremely simplistic.
3. Allowed Hiya to circumvent BoxeR's powerful contain via drops (which in turn was also made possible thanks to Blue Storm's terrain design). However, BoxeR's excellent scouting awareness allowed him to spot the drops and shut them down before they could do real damage. Do I really need to explain how this map doesn't offer anything of the sort, in either case? There's just no depth to this map.
Anyway, I apologize Stylezerg. I didn't mean to do a big text-wall critique of the map; I figured my initial comment was obvious enough, but couldn't avoid elaborating after the push back if you're serious about making good maps as opposed to just having fun in the editor. I won't push the issue any further, as there isn't much more to be said on my part.
|
Wow very interesting edit, I had not seen it. THNX FOR THE INTERESTING POST (Even if it is to criticize my map)
To be fair that is Boxer playing, greatest EVER.
And that is also not only a professional map, but one of the very great maps ever made (This is arguable IK, but no 1 can deny it is a great map) in BW (bw as you know had many many years to let the map makers experiment and make things right). In addition SC2 and BW although they seem alike, they are not, different units/different math = different game.
Yes my map is not as complex as blue storm, I am getting serious about mapmaking, but this is just my 3rd map (For sc2). Obviously this 3rd map of mine is better than the previous 1s due to the debates going on.
Could you give me maybe 2 good examples in sc2 maps where the idea of complexity is well executed? (Not just a map name plz, a link or a pic is better 4 me because im not that good with map names)
With this map I tried to keep things simple from the get go, because in bw I was told by some good old friends of mine in bwmaps.net that i had a tendency of making very cool and interesting maps, but I just added to many crazy things into a single idea. http://www.panschk.de/mappage/maplist.php?wauthor=sTY_leZerG-eX
In my BW mapping days it took me several maps to get good. But eventually I did get good. Take a look at this:
+ Show Spoiler +
As far as the complexity of my map, yes it is more simple, but that does not mean its not complex at all, I think it could give epic games, there are the obvious things that have been mentioned to make an attack happen, but there is also plenty of space for, muta/drop/WP play on my map.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bmR3BKx.jpg)
Also maps in sc2 started with the tenancy of having your main base and a very weird nat with a really far away 3rd (That lead to a lot of 1 base play, in the times where going 14 hatch was OMG so risky), little by little, maps changed (there are several map examples of this) it changed to the point where maps are giving players very easy nats, and very easy 3rds, and some times relatively easy 4ths (So crazy easy they are, that it would be impossible to have this in BW). So as for my map, simply what I tried to do was give the people and the tendency what they want, and also adding a fun twist of my own (In this case, the fact that players have to choose which side there 3rd expo is going to be at, and what path are they going to chose for there army, and trying to guess what your opponent is going to choose).
But u are probably right, my map is likely to simple.
As for the current map situation, do you or any 1 have any recommendations (other that the ones already mentioned) to improve the current concept? Or should I just finish this map, and apply the new knowledge in my next map?
P.S.
Epic game btw, I had not seen it.
|
At your request, I'll answer your questions. 
On October 05 2014 02:21 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:
Could you give me maybe 2 good examples in sc2 maps where the idea of complexity is well executed? (Not just a map name plz, a link or a pic is better 4 me because im not that good with map names)
This one you'll find differing opinions all over the place, but I'll provide some maps that, during their time, were considered amongst the best available. First up is Cloud Kingdom:
+ Show Spoiler +
This map implemented a lot of concepts that made it arguably the best WoL map of all time. It introduced a very dynamic high/low ground relationship at all points on the map, re-introduced the idea of low-ground mineral lines harassable from a high-ground cliff (also a feature in the next map I'll provide), and offered alternate expansion flows that would have a huge impact on how a particular match up was played. Then there's the little things, like small (and blockable) harassment paths, etc. like we saw in the Blue Storm example. It was really rare to see a "bad" game played on this map from a pro level and offered numerous strategic options, from early all-ins all the way up to long macro games.
This next map is pretty retro, but seeing as I already made a reference to it I'll include it as well. Behold Xel'Naga Caverns, arguably the best map of the original WoL ladder pool:
+ Show Spoiler +
While hardly the best map ever made in hindsight, what made it great back in the day was the concepts applied to the map. You had a backdoor harassment path which could be used against both the natural and the third (which, I mentioned earlier, would often be blocked off to protect the nat), an alternative-but-risky third base via the gold, and a forward position on the map that actually provided some benefit: controlling the forward-most watch tower would give you a position to deny the opponent's gold while also restricting movement from their natural, forcing them to either push into your position or go around via the backdoor/low-ground third, which is less ideal. Obviously in this case I'm ignoring the flaws of the map and simply highlighting the good, strategic parts.
Performing drops, etc. on both of these maps are more reasonable than yours, as bases are more spread out to allow for multi-pronged aggression or simply catching your opponent out of position. This is a good segway into:
On October 05 2014 02:21 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:As far as the complexity of my map, yes it is more simple, but that does not mean its not complex at all, I think it could give epic games, there are the obvious things that have been mentioned to make an attack happen, but there is also plenty of space for, muta/drop/WP play on my map. + Show Spoiler +
I'll use a diagram of my own to explain why these options you've highlighted aren't really options at all for producing exciting and dynamic game play.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JZuPsW5l.jpg)
Some static defence and an army sitting in a centralized location is all you're going to need to fend off any sort of air/drop harassment. In other words, the best way to defend such harassment is to sit around and turtle. It takes less than 30 APM to perform such a feat. This is why I criticized earlier saying that your best option is to sit around and max out your army supply.
On October 05 2014 02:21 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:
Also maps in sc2 started with the tenancy of having your main base and a very weird nat with a really far away 3rd (That lead to a lot of 1 base play, in the times where going 14 hatch was OMG so risky), little by little, maps changed (there are several map examples of this) it changed to the point where maps are giving players very easy nats, and very easy 3rds, and some times relatively easy 4ths (So crazy easy they are, that it would be impossible to have this in BW). So as for my map, simply what I tried to do was give the people and the tendency what they want, and also adding a fun twist of my own (In this case, the fact that players have to choose which side there 3rd expo is going to be at, and what path are they going to chose for there army, and trying to guess what your opponent is going to choose).
While your assessment of the situation is correct, I'd say you're taking the wrong approach by pandering to a poor economic expectation, which only results in much more stale games. This staleness is one of the biggest complaints the community has had about SC2 for a long time, but they always expect Blizzard to change the game so it's dynamic in spite of free economy, rather than accepting that economy should be more difficult to obtain like in BW. When watching 2010/2011 Wings of Liberty games, each game was much more action-packed and dynamic (ignoring the obviously lower skill level of everyone, since the game was new) and, lo and behold, the maps were harder to expand on.
This map heavily favours stale game play due to the free economy. In particular, your best strategies are going to be mech->sky terran, sky toss, and swarm host->brood lord, respectively. All three of these thrive on sitting around and building a large economic bank, then making the strongest late-game armies each race has to offer. Your alternative result is going to be weird all-ins done by players who don't find the former type of strategy to be very fun.
On October 05 2014 02:21 sTYleZerG-eX wrote:
As for the current map situation, do you or any 1 have any recommendations (other that the ones already mentioned) to improve the current concept? Or should I just finish this map, and apply the new knowledge in my next map?
Personally, I'd apply the new knowledge to my next map, rather than tear this map apart and trying to fit new knowledge into its already established concept. The choice is yours, though.
|
If you wanted to keep the guts of this map but make it REALLY interesting, turn the natural into a gold base and put it up against a cliff into the middle of the map. At the same time, make it possible to take the left- or right-hand 3rd as a natural (maybe rocks, chokepoint redesign?). Now all of a sudden players have to fight over the middle of the map actually, and the early game has a million interesting choices. I'll make a picture if you want.
|
not being able to wall the natural kills pvz. this is worse than foxtrot and daedalus together in that regard.
|
On October 06 2014 20:47 Socke wrote:
not being able to wall the natural kills pvz. this is worse than foxtrot and daedalus together in that regard.
you can wall either side with pylon+1big building
In the case of Nexus-->Gate, you could just do your first pylon to the left, build the Nexus, build the gate on the left (full wall at the left), build your next pylon on the right, build the cybercore on the right (=full wall at the right).
So you need 2pylons+2big buildings (cybercore/forge/gateway) to wall, which is much less than on Daedalus, right?
I guess it could be hard for a forge expand though, since you can't defend with a single canon, since you need 1canon per side if you don't have the fast stalker/core against zerglings.
|
On October 06 2014 18:56 EatThePath wrote:
If you wanted to keep the guts of this map but make it REALLY interesting, turn the natural into a gold base and put it up against a cliff into the middle of the map. At the same time, make it possible to take the left- or right-hand 3rd as a natural (maybe rocks, chokepoint redesign?). Now all of a sudden players have to fight over the middle of the map actually, and the early game has a million interesting choices. I'll make a picture if you want.
Yeah picture plz, because I dont quite understand what u mean. (sound like a really weird idea, but sure give it a go)
On October 06 2014 20:47 Socke wrote:
not being able to wall the natural kills pvz. this is worse than foxtrot and daedalus together in that regard.
Yes Forge fast expo looks pretty tough on this map, speed ling all in might be hard to stop. But considering that in the current meta most players open gate/core (variations), and full wall of takes gate pylon, I think it should be ok
|
Map is now finished!!!
(See details on the NEW EDIT on the main POST)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/5/59/ESV_Cloud_Kingdom.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/5/55/Xel%27Naga_Caverns.jpg)
