|
[M] (2) AVEX - High Peak![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w38tLTI.png) Have you ever wanted to sit atop a mountain and sing to the heavens?![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0buil9tl.png) (click to enlarge) 60+ Show Spoiler +Analyzer:+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer seems broken, will add when it's fixed.
168x168 Tileset: Endion, Bel'Shir Ex2, a whole mess of textures. Spawn Positions: 5, 11 Base Count: 14 Servers: NA, EU, SEA, KR Features/Explanation/Whatever:+ Show Spoiler + No real inspiration here, the map has undergone a bunch of changes, and at one point an entire re-design, as the first layout was too big, this one's still on the bigger side to make up for all the pathway changes, hopefully I didn't make it too easy to take bases. Might have to move the gold base "3rd" farther away again, or just remove it.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wy39ni2.png)
|
Cool use of the asteroid doodads with the fog, it really comes together for that mountaintop look. Personally, I would've chosen more rocky textures, so it isn't such a stark transition from the exterior of the map to the interior. Textures like the Port Zion rock texture would actually be a good way to give it a matching rocky look, but also allow you to add some color. As for your layout, it's decent, it shows progression from you which is a positive. The two-entrance natural is something I think we should really be pushing, so I agree with that feature.
All in all, it's a good step for you. Actually reminds me of an old Ironman map.
|
I did actually have a rocky texture, but the problem I faced was that most of the Legacy textures very poorly blend with the seemingly flat textures of old, :/
I'm working to make my own textures but I'm hitting a wall with diffuse maps.
Thank you <3
|
Nothing wrong with going old-school and turning off height maps on all the textures. We made it this far without them. Or, if an old texture has the same pattern as a new one, you can use the new texture's height map on the old texture to aid blending.
|
I didn't mean using height map (I hate height map), but tilesets such as Endion blend very poorly with many other textures.
|
Eh, double 3rd base w/ gold? It's not even that vulnerable since it takes so long to get to the cliff above it for an attacker. I think I would put rocks on it.
|
I'm struggling to think of an example where I would want to take the safer third rather than the gold one. Since there's not so much of a difference, and the fact that securing the gold gives you a free base behind it when you want to go up to four bases, it makes that particular expansion probably the most important to secure.
The map is a little on the large side and has some empty air spaces that I'd try to shrink a little. I like how the natural is set up, and the aesthetics are nice, especially the rock doodads.
|
Without the gold right there, 4 bases is super hard. And yet, I really like the idea of taking the gold out and leaving all other spots the same. Yeah zerg has a problem getting 4 bases, but it doesn't seem like it needs that kind of help anymore. I'm really intrigued about that now... I think it's better without the extra gold than with it.
I think the scenery is the most beautiful sc2 mapping I have yet seen. It's like looking at a painting - not that it resembles a painting, but it gives a similar feeling of depicting a faraway, wonderful place, and it's sort of out of scale with the playable terrain, and it's magical.
|
|
|
Aesthetic concept is pretty genius, even if the execution isn't 100% top notch (although it's pretty good).
I got some comments on my 136x174 and this is 168x168 so I guess I'm off the hook :-P
3rd/4th concept is pretty cool, I think it could work pretty well if that gold was more vulnerable (as someone else said, it's not easy enough for the attacker to access that cliff).
edit: also, there's this gem from that map thread you linked newsunshine, gave me some lols (mostly, that picture) so thought I'd share for others:
+ Show Spoiler +On November 27 2011 12:47 Barrin wrote:<3 IronManSC I'm just gonna be blunt here, because I feel really strongly about this. I choose to write about this here because this map is a ridiculously prime example. There is a particular style/combination of proportions, base flow, and distances that I feel is profoundly hindering balanced, defenders-advantage-oriented but back-and-forth macro games. I can probably think of a better name, but for now I will call it "Circle Syndrome". Every symptom in the following picture adds to the problem (indeed it is all synergistic, all of them together is IMO basically a formula for disaster - interestingly enough this map has all of them together). However, most maps that have the Circle Syndrome don't have all of the symptoms. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rQh9h.jpg) Use this picture as a guideline for diagnosing the Circle Syndrome. The thing is that at least half of the expansions are extremely vulnerable to harassment. The problem is that it is mostly due to distances (removing defender's advantage) instead of actual base vulnerability (well in this case it's that too actually). If you ask me, almost exclusively no more than 35% of the end game expansions should have the defender's advantage removed in such a way. IMO most of these bases should have a small ramp (1x or 2x) on the attacker's side (and a significantly longer distance to any wider entrance (a structure I encourage)). I don't want to get too confusing, so I am going to highlight some of the top problems and their solutions (they are about distances): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/77Wyk.jpg) However, the ultimate cure to the Circle Syndrome is very simple. An easy third base! It shouldn't be overwhelmingly easy vulnerabilities like old Terminus, but it's distance to almost all of the enemy's eventual bases should generally be quite far. An easy fourth base (like only a single entrance) also helps a lot. In other words a fairly high saturation of minerals "far" away from your opponent. Don't get me wrong - maybe this map is a great aggressive map. I don't want to rule it out quite yet. But I swear it's the epitome of what I have been planning to move away from in my next maps. I just want to express that I think this particular combination of proportions, base flow, and distances (now conglomerated into a single map - I suppose that's impressive actually lol) has been too pervasive in the mapmaking metagame. Make it stop please!
What about these other 2p maps?+ Show Spoiler +Xel'Naga Caverns (140x124) + Show Spoiler +Well, it doesn't have a tremendous amount of the classic symptoms. But it has very difficult 3rd and 4th. Definitely a candidate for the Circle Syndrome.
Dual Sight (150x120) + Show Spoiler +Yeah... pretty bad actually. Definitely Circle Syndrome.
Crossfire (108x160) + Show Spoiler +Lol. Such a unique map. It essentially does not suffer too much from the Circle Syndrome (you could argue that it does somewhat).
Daybreak (148x120) + Show Spoiler +If you start looking at this map from the center it looks like it has Circle Syndrome. But the fairly long rectangular distance (left to right) resulting in an easy third makes it more than bearable. Half of the central bases are low saturation (relative mineral saturation is the key here - this helps). An amazing map that takes the best of both worlds.
Bel'Shir Beach (120x128) + Show Spoiler +Kinda looks like it has it. But look closely. The map's (fairly small = good) central width gets split through the 3.5 and 6.5 central bases. These bases have very high openness making them unattractive until the late game. Fairly high resource saturation on your half of the map: (1) the third is quite open actually, but the fairly long third-third distance makes up for it, also the third is only close to the highly open (unattractive) central base (2) there is only 1 entrance to the fourth, woot (3) the fifth base has only a single convenient attacking entrance. No Circle Syndrome here.
Well whadya know. If you force a 4p map to be cross position only, it's basically a 2p map. None of the 4 (originally 4-spawn but now forced cross position) maps in the WCG map pool have any problems with Circle Syndrome. Shakuras Plateau (156x128) + Show Spoiler +Tal'Darim Altar (176x176) + Show Spoiler +Antiga Shipyard (132x136) + Show Spoiler +Metalopolis (140x140) + Show Spoiler +
|
Those 3rd/4th (gold) expos remind me of a 2v2 3v3.. map expansion pattern
|
Hey Avexyli ,
I reviewed you're Map on EU you might wanna check it out. Pointed out some issues that came up as i played you're map. 
|
On December 10 2015 16:14 Fatam wrote:Aesthetic concept is pretty genius, even if the execution isn't 100% top notch (although it's pretty good). I got some comments on my 136x174 and this is 168x168 so I guess I'm off the hook :-P 3rd/4th concept is pretty cool, I think it could work pretty well if that gold was more vulnerable (as someone else said, it's not easy enough for the attacker to access that cliff). edit: also, there's this gem from that map thread you linked newsunshine, gave me some lols (mostly, that picture) so thought I'd share for others: + Show Spoiler +On November 27 2011 12:47 Barrin wrote:<3 IronManSC I'm just gonna be blunt here, because I feel really strongly about this. I choose to write about this here because this map is a ridiculously prime example. There is a particular style/combination of proportions, base flow, and distances that I feel is profoundly hindering balanced, defenders-advantage-oriented but back-and-forth macro games. I can probably think of a better name, but for now I will call it "Circle Syndrome". Every symptom in the following picture adds to the problem (indeed it is all synergistic, all of them together is IMO basically a formula for disaster - interestingly enough this map has all of them together). However, most maps that have the Circle Syndrome don't have all of the symptoms. Use this picture as a guideline for diagnosing the Circle Syndrome. The thing is that at least half of the expansions are extremely vulnerable to harassment. The problem is that it is mostly due to distances (removing defender's advantage) instead of actual base vulnerability (well in this case it's that too actually). If you ask me, almost exclusively no more than 35% of the end game expansions should have the defender's advantage removed in such a way. IMO most of these bases should have a small ramp (1x or 2x) on the attacker's side (and a significantly longer distance to any wider entrance (a structure I encourage)). I don't want to get too confusing, so I am going to highlight some of the top problems and their solutions (they are about distances): However, the ultimate cure to the Circle Syndrome is very simple. An easy third base! It shouldn't be overwhelmingly easy vulnerabilities like old Terminus, but it's distance to almost all of the enemy's eventual bases should generally be quite far. An easy fourth base (like only a single entrance) also helps a lot. In other words a fairly high saturation of minerals "far" away from your opponent. Don't get me wrong - maybe this map is a great aggressive map. I don't want to rule it out quite yet. But I swear it's the epitome of what I have been planning to move away from in my next maps. I just want to express that I think this particular combination of proportions, base flow, and distances (now conglomerated into a single map - I suppose that's impressive actually lol) has been too pervasive in the mapmaking metagame. Make it stop please!
What about these other 2p maps?+ Show Spoiler +Xel'Naga Caverns (140x124) + Show Spoiler +Well, it doesn't have a tremendous amount of the classic symptoms. But it has very difficult 3rd and 4th. Definitely a candidate for the Circle Syndrome.
Dual Sight (150x120) + Show Spoiler +Yeah... pretty bad actually. Definitely Circle Syndrome.
Crossfire (108x160) + Show Spoiler +Lol. Such a unique map. It essentially does not suffer too much from the Circle Syndrome (you could argue that it does somewhat).
Daybreak (148x120) + Show Spoiler +If you start looking at this map from the center it looks like it has Circle Syndrome. But the fairly long rectangular distance (left to right) resulting in an easy third makes it more than bearable. Half of the central bases are low saturation (relative mineral saturation is the key here - this helps). An amazing map that takes the best of both worlds.
Bel'Shir Beach (120x128) + Show Spoiler +Kinda looks like it has it. But look closely. The map's (fairly small = good) central width gets split through the 3.5 and 6.5 central bases. These bases have very high openness making them unattractive until the late game. Fairly high resource saturation on your half of the map: (1) the third is quite open actually, but the fairly long third-third distance makes up for it, also the third is only close to the highly open (unattractive) central base (2) there is only 1 entrance to the fourth, woot (3) the fifth base has only a single convenient attacking entrance. No Circle Syndrome here.
Well whadya know. If you force a 4p map to be cross position only, it's basically a 2p map. None of the 4 (originally 4-spawn but now forced cross position) maps in the WCG map pool have any problems with Circle Syndrome. Shakuras Plateau (156x128) + Show Spoiler +Tal'Darim Altar (176x176) + Show Spoiler +Antiga Shipyard (132x136) + Show Spoiler +Metalopolis (140x140) + Show Spoiler +
Yeah, that picture was pretty awesome lol, the funniest part is that it was serious. It was amazing how seriously people took the idea of circle syndrome, when in actuality it is 100% irrelevant to how good a map is.
|
I'm up for removing the gold base. Mighty I'll check out your criticism when I can. <3
|
No one has mentioned that the gold bases have 6 mineral patches. I think it's a pretty cool idea. It might throw some players off since bases aren't dynamic, and they'll always say 16. It would be cool if they change that so we can get some variety. Oops, I was wrong; it actually says 12/12. Very cool.
Also, the gas at the naturals are "rich vespene gysers." I'm not sure that's intentional. It could play out better as a 3rd, since it would be optional instead of mandatory, but I'm really not sure.
One thing to note is all of your mineral patches are 1500. Was that intentional too? I am pretty sure Blizzard wants standard bases to have a mix of 1500 and 750s for LOTV.
I don't really think the gold being less vulnerable than other maps is an issue because they will mine out slower and give a bit less resources for the investment. I like it.
|
No the natural gas isn't intentional, thanks for pointing that out.
I'm also used to not having to change all the far patches to the 750 ones, gunna be updating in the next hour.
|
On December 12 2015 10:22 Fictitious1267 wrote:
No one has mentioned that the gold bases have 6 mineral patches. I think it's a pretty cool idea. It might throw some players off since bases aren't dynamic, and they'll always say 16. It would be cool if they change that so we can get some variety. Oops, I was wrong; it actually says 12/12. Very cool.
Also, the gas at the naturals are "rich vespene gysers." I'm not sure that's intentional. It could play out better as a 3rd, since it would be optional instead of mandatory, but I'm really not sure.
One thing to note is all of your mineral patches are 1500. Was that intentional too? I am pretty sure Blizzard wants standard bases to have a mix of 1500 and 750s for LOTV.
I don't really think the gold being less vulnerable than other maps is an issue because they will mine out slower and give a bit less resources for the investment. I like it.
So normal gold bases have always had 6 mineral patches, this is standard.
Also, LotV mineral lines (non-gold) are four 1500s and four 900s (used to be 750 in the beta but they bumped it to 900 because they thought 750 was too extreme). I've been putting my 900s in the middle of the line and usually both of my further patches are 900s but I don't know if it matters too much. Just been doing it that way for consistency.
I'm guessing the gas was by accident, but not sure.
|
Thanks. You can tell I don't make gold bases often. I put all my 900s at the farther locations. I'm guessing that makes them mine out slower and the base more evenly, but I am just guessing, and I'm willing to be that Blizzard doesn't even bother.
|
I always use 900 at the farthest as well, it's what Blizz does in their maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZYma6T3l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NtUJV7I.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e6TU7Xx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BgVvgeZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qeDE2uu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nL5Qbly.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NVaAuDv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0buil9t.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZYma6T3.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zkoU9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GUwrl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kuxBd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A6sHH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qgxLH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T9eXY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Lzait.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AXoKG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fbenk.jpg)
