Let me tell you why your map sucks - Page 2

Viperbird

United States118 Posts

May 04 2016 21:18 GMT

#21

[QUOTE]On May 05 2016 03:59 Avexyli wrote:

Wow Namaste is the prettiest map i've ever seen. I hope its a good map gameplay wise!

Insidioussc2

Germany96 Posts

May 04 2016 21:31 GMT

#22

170 x 146
Still wip, so I uploaded a pic with pathing layer visible.
Do you think the main base layout can work? Marines don't reach any mineral workers from the lowground, stalkers barely do. Also I am pretty unsure if the forward gold base should stay rocked and golden.

Oh and you did an amazing job so far, Thanks for doing this!

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

May 04 2016 22:50 GMT

#23

--- Nuked ---

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

May 04 2016 22:50 GMT

#24

Kinda been out of the game for a bit, so they all probably suck..

This is the only map I have completed in the last few months. I re-visited the ideas of Sanctuary, so they're similar, yet quite different.
[image loading]

I have a bunch of layouts, and these are the two I'm thinking about decorating and submitting. Though, might just make something new to replace the last one, as it's not exactly my favorite.

[image loading]

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 05 2016 00:22 GMT

#25

On May 04 2016 21:50 RexTerran wrote:
[image loading]

It's a very good map. One of the few maps which are "standard" with a heavy twist to keep the game interesting, which I think is exactly the kind of map that the ladder needs. (Reminds me a bit of Usan Nation). The biggest problem is the complexity in spawn positions. Despite start positions being indicated on the minimap we've never seen something this complex on the ladder so I'm not sure how well it will be accepted. Still, the map is polished and offers a really unique concept so I hope it gets deep into TLMC.

To other mappers, this map serves an important lesson in creating effective maps. The basic rules of the game are respected so players can play a standard build, but the architecture of the map opens up new and different strategies which means this map isn't going to play out like a carbon copy of a previous map. This is the right way to innovate.

On May 05 2016 00:50 Namrufus wrote:
Please tell me how these maps suck.

[image loading]

Map Dimensions: 144x120

Looks like a HotS map since there's so few expansions and they're reasonably spread out. I'd consider adding a base on the high ground behind the third (and consequently making the map taller) and removing the rocks. Then you can widen the chokes into either of the third options. This would make the map feel more LotV-esque. Not much else to say since it's a fairly standard map.

Map Dimensions: 144x112
The central pathway is 2x2 wide, and can be blocked by a depot/pylon.

Another map which feels like it's better suited to HotS than LotV. More interesting than your first submission, although it's harder to read from the overview because of the decoration which means things like the pathway might not be seen. I think you need to find spaces for an additional base for each player at a minimum. Questions: (1) what is the intent of the gold base, it feels like you just decided it should be gold with no rationale behind it. (2) the natural choke, what do you hope to achieve with that design? I'm not sure what the LOS blockers and dual path are meant to bring to the table.

Edit: ignore this one if 3 maps is too many, but I also have this map. It is probably stupid:
[image loading]

It has 4 rock-blocked (terran can't land before the rocks are destroyed) gold island bases.

I assume there are doodads placed in the island which prevent a CC from landing next to the rock? I like the concept of this map, unfortunately it just won't work in LotV. Enlarge the map and add many more bases for each player. There's potential in this concept but the map at the moment isn't great.

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 05 2016 00:57 GMT

#26

On May 05 2016 02:59 Meavis wrote:
[image loading]

Annihilation Station with tweaks? I'm a fan. I don't think you're going to get a standard map executed much better than this (and also traditionally you've been strongest in created standard maps). I would imagine this map would be excluded from the finals only if (a) there are better standard maps (haven't seen any yet) (b) there are imbalances found (unlikely in this time period) (c) Blizzard don't to go in this direction. (c) is the most likely but that's to the detriment of the map pool.

It's not bad, but the previous map just feels better executed. It's hard for me to suggest improvements since it's already fairly polished and the criticisms would be to do with how effective the design decisions you've made. Anyway, since they're pretty similar in gameplay I wouldn't submit this one if you had to choose.

This is interesting, but it's not a finalist yet. I think you need to go over the map and really develop the ideas in this map: (i) the reasonably safe expansions (esp. nat third) but vulnerable to rocks being broken (ii) rocks dictating attack paths on an otherwise flat map. I'd suggest going a little crazy with these two ideas (so make bases extremely safe, but with rocks providing that safety and rocks better placed to dictate attack paths). With that more extreme map you can compare and contrast with this map and hopefully find a happy middle ground where the concept really shines and screams out for attention.

Comments similar to the second map, but it's less interesting still. With these maps you always run the danger of being boring unless it's exceptionally executed.

This is getting more interesting since there's all the LOS blockers around. Still feels like you're being restrained with your concept here. I think they need to be used as tactically as possible since a bunch of them don't really contribute to the map at all. I also wish that the high ground side paths were more important, not sure how you do that though. Needs to have more bases to be more LotV-esque.

Interesting idea here. Problem is that it's a huge pain in the ass to defend behind the exposed mineral lines. I would even consider making the highground at 3/6/9/12 a path between the natural and the area behind the mineral lines. Balance wise I'd be concerned about the strength of the high ground overlooking the natural area since it seems a huge pain to break an entrenched position there.

These two have the most potential.

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 05 2016 01:54 GMT

#27

On May 05 2016 03:59 Avexyli wrote:
Macro: Synchestra (156x156)

Firstly the light decals are distracting; you might consider submitting an image where that isn't so pronounced to TLMC.
It doesn't feel like a macro map since there's exclusively small corridors on the map, meaning the map is more suited to skirmishing than large fights. I'd open up the center so that there's a large expanse of ground instead of a bridge in the center. This would help armies fight. You could do the same thing with the center blue bases, that is removing the high ground corridor near them (which serves minimal purpose) in favour of more room. A few of the bases are really hard to attack because of all the corridors as well (e.g. the natural fourth base). I don't understand the point of the gold base either, care to explain?

In summary, I think the map can be greatly improved by cutting features which aren't used in games or are making the gameplay experience worse.

Detox

Similar comments to the previous map. There's a lot going on here and I think you need to be more prudent on whether you include the feature or not. The gold base is also super weird and out of place. I think your first map is stronger.

Rush: Namaste (148x148)

The top half of the map is really nice, the bottom half of the map doesn't work for me. Like there's all this good stuff which forces conflict in the top half of the map, but the bottom half of the map has none of that. I don't think you can ever pull off this concept successfully while retaining this layout of the map because the bottom will always bring the concept down.
[image loading]

I'd rebuild the map with that structure in mind. I think you'll be better able to retain the tension/excitement in the map with the bases laid out like that. (White space in the above image being terrain to be filled in)

New (Island according to Blizz standards): Slipstream Station (156x156)

What is new about this map? My immediate concern is the bottom left/top right where 3 bases can be secured from securing one position. That seems a little strong. The map feels like it's just a split map right now so doesn't seem that interesting.

Gold: Colossus Falls (148x160)

I woudln't class this as doing something interesting with the gold bases. There's nothing too extreme about the positioning at the moment. Similar to the previous map, there's no contested expansions due to the expansion layout which is kind of a shame. This just means its going to be a splitmap map and not very interesting. The islands are a nice idea, but it feels a bit like an afterthought - I wish it were more of a feature. The gold third is weird, I'm not sure why you did that other than to make it appear different.

On May 05 2016 05:35 Viperbird wrote:
Nerazim Outpost 140x132
Spawns are top left and bottom right.
In base expansion blocked by rocks (low hp, can be killed with a few zerglings/marines/zealot quickly.)
Central watchtower covers most of the high ground area in the middle.
[image loading]

Blizzard will change the rocks to default values which defeats the purpose of them. There are some proportion issues in two ways; base distances and land mass sizes. As meavis famously said, that's an issue that only gets resolved with experience. It's also a variation of standard which means its competing in the most difficult of categories so I don't think it will go very far.

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

May 05 2016 03:01 GMT

#28

On May 05 2016 09:22 Plexa wrote:

Show nested quote +

+ Show Spoiler [map image] +

I envision that the default expansion route is in a straight line, vertically (blue lines in the spoilered image). The intent of the gold base is to provide an additional incentive to break the pattern and flop to the other side (yellow lines). I guess maybe it doesn't need to be gold to have that effect(?)

The weird nat is just weird for the sake of weird. The patch of los outside the nat is patterned after similar features in early WOL bliz maps, like on scrap station, and isn't really doing anything in terms of, like, any sort of Grand Design for the map as a whole.

Show nested quote +

more bases, you say.....????

+ Show Spoiler [map image] +

Seriously though, thanks for the feedback.

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 05 2016 03:35 GMT

#29

On May 05 2016 12:01 Namrufus wrote:

Show nested quote +

+ Show Spoiler [map image] +

Show nested quote +

more bases, you say.....????

+ Show Spoiler [map image] +

Seriously though, thanks for the feedback.

I don't see players expanding vertically; I think that the natural fourth location is the gold base (it's way easier to defend than the base at the top). In fact, it's almost as defendable as the 'natural' third. I'm not sure the gold base achieves what you want it to/ With the current setup I feel like every race will take that base as their third, if not, take it as their natural.

Uvantak

Uruguay1381 Posts

May 05 2016 04:59 GMT

#30

Hmm I was wondering if you would be able to keep up with the incoming flood of maps, but nice to see that somehow you still managed to, also regarding Bastion, I agree with you at least partially regarding that the idea behind the map became lost between all the changed I did to it to avoid it becoming too Z favored based on the initial Naturals which were more open, also the general idea of the map, goes more along Dallaire, where the center of the map is secondary to the sidepaths.

Also, here's a small sketch I did a while ago, seen that there's still some time, what do you think of it?

[image loading]

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

May 05 2016 05:06 GMT

#31

On May 05 2016 06:31 Insidioussc2 wrote:
[image loading]

The proportions here are way off. The telltale sign of this is the massive amounts of deadspace/water that you've put everywhere. In base golds as a natural are way too extreme. I feel like until we see a gold base natural that this is too far. The features on the right side of the map are wasted; so much of any maps action revolves around bases 1-2-3-4 so the stuff going on around bases 5-6-7-8 rarely get any playtime. It's advisable to keep those bases simple for this reason. If you divide your map vertically into quarters, the 2nd quarter from the left should be deleted and everything else moved over (basically from the natural ramp to the center ot the map). That'd do a lot for the map.

On May 05 2016 07:50 Timetwister22 wrote:
[image loading]

Somethings off with this. I don't understand what the idea of the map is anymore. I still like the vulnerable golds, but beyond that I get confused. There's no expansion conflict (each side has their own bases and that's it), it's frustrating to move around the map and the only strategic location that you can hold on the map is the high ground overlooking the gold base above/below the main. It's a playable map for sure, but it doesn't leap out to me as contest winner or anything.

Strikes me as a HotS map not a LotV map. I'm sure if you polished this it'd be a pretty good standard map, but maybe not worth the time invested to do that because standard maps have a low payoff contest-wise these days.

This is a little more interesting. It's still on the standard side so maybe you can do one of those experimental gold things here. Instead of having the rock on the ramp place the rock between the natural and third on the high ground which blocks it off. Then if that base were gold you'd have some interesting conflict possible. And even if you take the base there's still some counterplay from the lowground. I wish bottom righ/top left were more interesting, but maybe that's a necessarily evil.

RoomOfMush

1296 Posts

May 05 2016 07:07 GMT

#32

Thanks for the feedback!

I completely agree with the Xel-Naga tower. I added one to the center, it overlooks both gold bases almost completely. I also moved the gold minerals as close to the cliff as possible. Stalkers can now attack most patches from the low ground.

Do you think this is an improvement (with the far corners) or has it become worse?
[image loading]

My goal was to make the side paths less approachable to make the center path more important.

Fatam

1986 Posts

May 05 2016 07:55 GMT

#33

On May 04 2016 15:28 Plexa wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yeah I like what's going on with the main-nat-third-fourth in the first map. There's an interesting decision to be made between taking the more convenient to defend third or safer natural. So you might see different races deciding to take different bases (i.e. zerg the convenient one, terran the safer one). Changes to emphasize this decision would be good for the map. I don't like the center; seems unreasonably restrictive. Definitely has potential, keep at it.

The second one I'm less enthusiastic about. I don't understand what you're trying to do between the main-nat-third. There's some cute ideas going on in the corner bases (with those small paths providing backdoors) but the rest of the map doesn't support the skirmishing potential those paths offer. I think the big problem here is the high ground third (or fourth) in the middle. They're way too strong positionally and I think the map would be better if you got rid of them (along with the high ground pod) and made improvements from that point. (The strong position of that base is one reason why the bottom right/top left goes to waste).

Thanks for the thoughts! That's a bitter pill to swallow @ the 2nd one, especially since the highground 4th and the horizontal ramp inbetween it and the nat is a major part of the map, maybe even the most inluential. The idea with that highground and it's strong defending power and with the corner bases and the difficulty in bouncing between them and your other bases (among other things) was to encourage airplay (but it may be compromising other things too much).

Now to figure out if I try a new version of this map or just submit another map in its stead.

Other possibilities are:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/486122-2-arcane-asteroid (with the speed reduction on ramps removed, obviously)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/502168-2-revanscar-relay
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/503864-2-the-jungle-sleeps
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/498862-2-the-shoals
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/499410-2-disperse
or even add a base to one of these old ones:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/421766-2-the-moor
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/416510-2-flame-crest

if that's too much to skim through then I can't blame you at all

Cheers

Insidioussc2

Germany96 Posts

May 05 2016 10:07 GMT

#34

On May 05 2016 14:06 Plexa wrote:

Show nested quote +

Thanks, I am gonna scramble the map and maybe reuse parts of it. On a side note: we already have a ladder map with a gold base natural

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

May 05 2016 19:05 GMT

#35

maps n stuff

NewSunshine

United States5938 Posts

May 05 2016 19:26 GMT

#36

I'm confident in my other 2 submissions, but if you're still shelling out feedback, feel free to tell me what you think about this one:

[image loading]

Vilham

11 Posts

May 05 2016 20:03 GMT

#37

So I worked on this map ages ago and have recently updated it. It has a low protected 2nd and rocks blocking the mid route to slow early game rushes.

[image loading]

Xenotolerance

United States464 Posts

May 05 2016 21:24 GMT

#38

Can I count on your vote in 2016?

[image loading]

and

cassiopeia of old has been complete for ages, new one still needs some love

BoxedCube

United States23 Posts

May 06 2016 01:01 GMT

#39

Would love some feedback on this map. Thanks. New mapmaker here.

anon244

5 Posts

May 06 2016 06:03 GMT

#40

I'm not particularly good at making maps look aesthetically pleasing, so I'm sure these maps suck in more ways than I care to count. Nonetheless, I don't make maps that often so I'm game to find out just how badly these maps suck. After all, getting better is hard without knowing what exactly can and should be improved.

GoldRushVoid (Macro Map; Forced Cross Spawn) 184x176

[image loading]

StrategicMining (New/Interesting High Yield Usage) 176x130

[image loading]

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Let me tell you why your map sucks - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming