|
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/7NG4P7y.jpg) 1) it's a pretty easy 3 base if you have the base really far from the cliff. Mech and protoss possibly become cancerous.
Not a big worry, because of backdoor rocks+lotv economy avoids it becoming HotS level cancer.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:2) the picture shows zerg taking a base there and terran being able to siege it, but the idea was that there are multiple 3rd and 4th base options. So against Terran you simply don't take that base until much later.
i.e. Zerg just wouldn't be taking that base against Terran, especially not as a third..
Yeah, understandable, problem is that on PvT, the alternative thirds are not close enough/too open for P to take, so P would be forced to take the backdoor third and getting into the same issue.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:3) In non-terran MUs you still want that base near the cliff so that air harass can still be attempted. Which is why I had the geysers on that side. It being behind double rock I find the base needs to be at least somewhat contestable.
Seems fair, tho if you want that I would recommend to change the min line so it is like so:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fGRfY9d.png)
The vespene geysers even when "important" are a lower worker density resource (nª workers mining/resource's footprint area) than minerals and they have the building HP, so if you wanted to make harassment easier on that base you would prefer to make the Mineral line the exposed target instead of the geysers, as making the geysers the target for harass actually reduces the overall damage harassment can make to the enemy's workers/economy, because of the lower worker density the resource has in order to be mined.
Did a small math thingy, hopefully it is easy to understand:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JGnIZZ0.png)
In short, Minerals are small and packed, while Geysers are 3x3 footprints and spaced out, therefore if someone wants to do economic dmg, he will head to the mineral line, where the bigger concentration of workers exist.
Going by this placing geysers as the "harassment focused point" goes against what you are trying to achieve.
At least that's how I see it, unless you are counting on the harasser's air units parking on the corner? And harassing from the corner's of the map inwards?
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:To expand on this, IMO people have been thinking about thirds wrongly in SC2 for a while. Me and Sidian have been on this train for a while, but the gist is that if you have multiple third options the chances that people will figure out a way to succeed on the map with their race.. skyrockets. Maps with optional expo paths almost always do well in terms of winrates (assuming there is not some huge imba thing that affects the entire map and overshadows it, such as the long length of apotheosis)
Yeah, that works for the most part, I did it on Miserere and Bastion to a certain degree, and it is also why Defender's Resort got to the finalists, because of all the optional thirds and fourths.
But the thing with Crimson Aftermath and to a certain degree Red Dragon is that the optional third bases are not as close as you want them to be in order to have the idea work solidly on P related MU's. There's the case that Shield Batteries might allow P's an easier time securing thirds, but that's not assured, it will depend on Meta development, and we still dont have shield batteries on the actual game. So even if things worked out in the future, the map still doesnt quite work right now.
On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:Also it's nitpicky but I'll share why I didn't make this base a half-base ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6AnK2bR.jpg) to defend that base from harass you need to have control of all 3 areas (red dots). Kind of hard to do at the same time. Or you can merge the 2 highground dots if you defend on the lowground, but then.. you're on the lowground  Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it.
I wasn't saying it because of Midgame shenanigans, I was saying it because on late game there's probably too many resources on that area of the map in too much close proximity
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eyigBeN.jpg)
Taking the central highgrounds on lategame might lockdown the entire bottom right side of the map leaving air harassment to the main, and attacks by the highly defensible "backdoor" rocks/path as the only "alternative path".
Thing is that for this specific layout, I dont thing this is per se "bad", I just find it icky, and maybe too turtly, SC2 is no BW, the economy on this game basically doesnt allow constant inefficient trading b/c Worker Pairing, pathing, units are different, I think that even when the map is solid I'm just not convinced on the lategame games on it.
But yeah, overall not sure, I guess at the end this is basically a rant on why does SC2 need to have poor economy, and if it whether because of that we might see maps like this one being more solid.
|
On September 29 2017 05:07 Uvantak wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:1) it's a pretty easy 3 base if you have the base really far from the cliff. Mech and protoss possibly become cancerous. Not a big worry, because of backdoor rocks+lotv economy avoids it becoming HotS level cancer. On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:2) the picture shows zerg taking a base there and terran being able to siege it, but the idea was that there are multiple 3rd and 4th base options. So against Terran you simply don't take that base until much later.
i.e. Zerg just wouldn't be taking that base against Terran, especially not as a third.. Yeah, understandable, problem is that on PvT, the alternative thirds are not close enough/too open for P to take, so P would be forced to take the backdoor third and getting into the same issue. On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:3) In non-terran MUs you still want that base near the cliff so that air harass can still be attempted. Which is why I had the geysers on that side. It being behind double rock I find the base needs to be at least somewhat contestable. Seems fair, tho if you want that I would recommend to change the min line so it is like so: The vespene geysers even when "important" are a lower worker density resource (nª workers mining/resource's footprint area) than minerals and they have the building HP, so if you wanted to make harassment easier on that base you would prefer to make the Mineral line the exposed target instead of the geysers, as making the geysers the target for harass actually reduces the overall damage harassment can make to the enemy's workers/economy, because of the lower worker density the resource has in order to be mined. Did a small math thingy, hopefully it is easy to understand: In short, Minerals are small and packed, while Geysers are 3x3 footprints and spaced out, therefore if someone wants to do economic dmg, he will head to the mineral line, where the bigger concentration of workers exist. Going by this placing geysers as the "harassment focused point" goes against what you are trying to achieve. At least that's how I see it, unless you are counting on the harasser's air units parking on the corner? And harassing from the corner's of the map inwards? On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:To expand on this, IMO people have been thinking about thirds wrongly in SC2 for a while. Me and Sidian have been on this train for a while, but the gist is that if you have multiple third options the chances that people will figure out a way to succeed on the map with their race.. skyrockets. Maps with optional expo paths almost always do well in terms of winrates (assuming there is not some huge imba thing that affects the entire map and overshadows it, such as the long length of apotheosis) Yeah, that works for the most part, I did it on Miserere and Bastion to a certain degree, and it is also why Defender's Resort got to the finalists, because of all the optional thirds and fourths. But the thing with Crimson Aftermath and to a certain degree Red Dragon is that the optional third bases are not as close as you want them to be in order to have the idea work solidly on P related MU's. There's the case that Shield Batteries might allow P's an easier time securing thirds, but that's not assured, it will depend on Meta development, and we still dont have shield batteries on the actual game. So even if things worked out in the future, the map still doesnt quite work right now. On September 27 2017 10:21 Fatam wrote:Also it's nitpicky but I'll share why I didn't make this base a half-base to defend that base from harass you need to have control of all 3 areas (red dots). Kind of hard to do at the same time. Or you can merge the 2 highground dots if you defend on the lowground, but then.. you're on the lowground Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it. I wasn't saying it because of Midgame shenanigans, I was saying it because on late game there's probably too many resources on that area of the map in too much close proximity Taking the central highgrounds on lategame might lockdown the entire bottom right side of the map leaving air harassment to the main, and attacks by the highly defensible "backdoor" rocks/path as the only "alternative path". Thing is that for this specific layout, I dont thing this is per se "bad", I just find it icky, and maybe too turtly, SC2 is no BW, the economy on this game basically doesnt allow constant inefficient trading b/c Worker Pairing, pathing, units are different, I think that even when the map is solid I'm just not convinced on the lategame games on it. But yeah, overall not sure, I guess at the end this is basically a rant on why does SC2 need to have poor economy, and if it whether because of that we might see maps like this one being more solid.
Interesting points. I think my initial idea with having the geysers being exposed to that side (in the initial position) was if they're being sieged by tanks/whatever then said attackers can actually kill the refineries/prevent mining from them which can be damaging. For air harass / sheer # of worker kills you are right about the mineral line being the preferred choice tho, touche.
@ PvT, I don't think P absolutely needs a choked off / super close 3rd to take it. They've definitely been managing on many LotV maps that don't have either. It does limit their options on how they can open, though, I will agree with you that far at least.
I think it's a delicate tightrope to walk. If you give several super close 3rd options (especially if 1 or 2 of them are "easy for protoss") then the ones he didn't take as his 3rd become easy 4ths and suddenly you're fucking zerg pretty hard
|
On September 18 2017 21:45 Meltage wrote:Id like to have feedback on Swarms End ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zGlSeut.jpg) Edit: I have to be more specific. Ok so is there some major flaws to the map I may be blind to? Im a mapper not up to date with WoL.
Swarm's End is a very, very solid early HotS map, but it has some conception problems, you will probably try to choke up the central ramps and pathway, all of em, in order to divert armies walking through the middle more towards to the "wings" of the map, think of the rocks on the central ramps along the main to main central attack path on Cloud Kingdom.
The map would overall benefit from the things I said of BlackPink
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mGFTgnQBRcrMkCC4Ide73uqKOT2qI4wLcyvVE3GNNks/edit#gid=1407801850
The use of space needs to be improved, specially around the central highgrounds, Tanks now days are very, very strong, and coupled with Liberators, and widow mines they are dictating map design and map spacing, using space ala Crossfire or even Bel'shir Vestige might lead to your map being imbalanced on T MU's because of lack of alternative pathways/open flanking options.
On September 18 2017 21:45 Meltage wrote:Are the thirds too difficult to take?
The forward third probably isn't, but barely so I think, the clockwise "optional" third which is farther away is also probably too far away. Gold base is probably too easy to take given the problems Bloodboil had on previous season aswell.
On September 18 2017 21:45 Meltage wrote:ADo the paths through the map and expansion pattern create an interresting flow, or is there something to it that would make it play badly?
Flow is pretty good, maybe a bit too much so, as the 3x sized ramps around the edges are good, but they allow for a probably excessively easy army movement, at the same time harming the ease at which players can secure their lategame bases.
It is a bit hard to explain, the way I see it is kinda like this:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pUqjjYn.jpg)
It goes on the same line as circle syndrome where the attacker has to travel a smaller distance to the "far" corner bases than the defender, but with the twist that now we need to take vision into account, if the attacker "plays well" he can go a long way into his own attack before getting scouted by his opponent, and by when the defender can react the attacker's army is at a shorter distance to the base than the defender's army is.
Hopefully this one explains it better:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vTwZcDc.jpg)
To players: Please dont take this image too seriously, it is meant to convey an idea, yes, I know people are meant to scout for where the hell the enemy army is.
The pink line represents the "sensible" extent of vision for red player, he (think it as toss, which is the weaker race vision wise) probably wont be seeing farther than that on a continued/persistent way, which means that he probably wont be able to react in time to reach and defend his "outer" bases, on this case the fifths.
The point I'm trying to make is that atm Swarm's End is pushing the player's armies too much into moving towards or alongside the "outer" edges of the map which tend to be areas where players dont commit much scouting, this is caused by the rather large ramps, choky central highgrounds, diagonal rocks blocking the pathway, and xel'naga vision. And the problem with the defender being unable to react in time to an enemy attack is caused because the bases are too spread apart from each other.
There also are other issues such as chokepoints (purple) placed on positions which harm the defender:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lK4c6Ng.jpg)
And tweaks to the third and use of space like this:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VeoLyjZ.jpg)
Might help to avoid possible problems with things like composite Tank+Lib pushes, tho on the image above I think I opened the top left area a bit too much.
To recap:
- Optional third too far
- Try to recover/gain as much space as possible from the cliffing in the central highgrounds as possible (check my suggestions to Avex's Blackpink)
- Remove/rework those chokepoints which affect the defender more than the attacker
- Probably reduce the size of the ramps along the borders of the map from 3x to 2x and maybe even add 4x4 rocks to some of the new 2x ramps in order to allow easier defense of the bases behind those chokepoints.
- Remove diagonal rocks in the middle.
- Add rocks or choke up the central attack passage that goes from Main2Main, on a similar fashion Superouman did on Cloud Kingdom.
- Maybe pull xel'nagas a bit further towards the top left/bottom right edges of the map, but it will depend on how easy to traverse the new central attack path will be.
- Gold bases are probably too easy for Z + Show Spoiler [maybe?] +
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fYetiKO.jpg) Not sure about this, it is kind of icky to me for couple reasons, but it might spark some ideas. Or maybe just remove them/swap em for blue bases.
On my eyes the map clearly had care put into it, but it suffered from being kind of stuck in time, that imo doesnt make it a bad map, just that some of the ideas that used to be valuable in the past have changed.
|
On September 19 2017 15:43 Youngrustler wrote:Thanks for taking the time to give feedback. Port Aleksander + Show Spoiler +I heard a lot of feedback from different people including yourself on the map. Some of these include corner bases being weak, map being very choked and needs to be opened, and also too standard and nothing to give it a X factor like other maps.
Yeah, that pretty much kind of sums up my own feelings about Port Aleksander.
Stuff like this, is in my opinion not permissible on ladder, the map as it stands is simply too excessively chokey
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/myzsltm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AHRTaTi.jpg)
Which is a pity, as the map itself, the flow of it is good, so is the overall layout, it is a good standard map that falls prey to bad spacing and too many doodads in the wrong places, like in the center:
A T army at the center with some Libs and Tanks will become easily un-engageable at any level, atm the map is simply too tight.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yggRz0n.jpg)
Here's another example of spacing which needs to be fixed:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xY7ZWRo.jpg)
I really dont want this post to be a series of pics of tanks with their photoshoped ranges, but atm that's probably the biggest problem the map has, tank abuse because of overall tight spaces, and it is a crippling problem.
Other problem is that behind the mains there is probably too much airspace, yeah, it is ok if a map has airspace behind the main to a certain degree, but for Aleksander it is overreach atm.
The distances/flow/layout on Aleksander is overall pretty good, the distances between Nat and Thirds are ok, tho the limited openness of the thirds is a problem, the highgrounds around the thirds atm are also problematic as they allow enemy armies to park in there and menace/siege the base in such a way that the defending player has to give up the base.
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HXxwYmy.jpg)
On this scenario above, unless red could flood over the enemy sieged up positions in the highground, he might aswell need to give up his third.
This is something one really needs to be very careful with every time that one uses highground near Third or even fourth bases, specially so, nowdays with stronger Tanks and siege units.
My general advice for the map, is remove all of the Port City Cargo colored boxes.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/X8W5WtA.jpg)
And rework the cliffing of the map, so you can space things better around the map and avoid these highly exploitative positions.
Also, Air Unit blockers for "pretty doodads" are NOT acceptable, reduce the height of the doodad and remove the Air Blocker.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/sh2J8QL.jpg)
On September 19 2017 15:43 Youngrustler wrote:
Just really want to improve this map since I feel its my cleanest map I have made so far would like to improve it as much as I can.
I'm very hard line regarding this, the last thing I will tell you is to stick to a single map, what I have done over the years is to create things, if they work with reasonable amount of effort and modifications, good, if they dont, then good as well, and I'll scrap it.
I think that the absolute worst thing you can do is to truly attach yourself to your work, you can make re-makes or "Neo" versions of your maps in the future once you are more experienced, but as you are learning, what you need to do is to make as many maps and fuck up as many of them as fast as possible, all the while learning as much as you can from every one, this is what I told avex back on the starbow days, this is what I told Meavis, this is what I tell everyone, try to make as many maps as possible, but dont publish them, dont put yourself under that pressure, just make maps and learn from them, compare them to mine, to New Sunshine's to Negative's to everyone, then copy my maps, NewSunshine's, negative's and learn the proportions. Then ditch that map you are working on, and start over.
Mapmaking is a skill of its own, that one must refine, you could literally be gold, and be a Top 3 Mapmaker on the world, I know because over the years there have been more than a couple of em (Superouman was Plat when he made Cloud Kingdom). Work on bulk, screw those maps up, learn from them, ditch em, and start on a clean slate, repeat, and wherever you have a map that you think doesnt have many screw ups, you can publish that one, and receive feedback about the screw ups you missed.
I wanted to link a couple videos about advice to people who are interested on drawing, but sadly couldnt find the one, but it wasnt far deeper than what I have just said, make maps, that's the best way to improve, then when you are more experienced you can go back and re-do those which you feel could have been improved.
On September 19 2017 15:43 Youngrustler wrote:Norad Refinery + Show Spoiler +I would also like to hear some feedback on this map, some concerns I could see are the third options the one near the main being too far? Map not being too interesting? This map was more of my recent maps created so hasn't seen too much fine tuning. As for the other two maps I have seen your suggestions for Defender's Resort and working towards those and also watching the map tournament to see if there is any other more major issues I can see and fine tune. Aruarian seem to fall into the trap of a rush map that has a gimmic that was a standard lay-out. I also probably should stop trying to get two entrances into the natural into the contest, but I did anyways lesson learned. Thanks again for the feedback to me and others, since this is to help improve not to attack you or any of the judges decisions.
I'll have to leave this one for another day sadly, it is getting late over here.
|
Thanks Uvantak, I'll look into revisiting this map later on down the road when I feel comfortable with my mapping skills. I see I need to work on checking siege positions and clean up these small mistakes you pointed out. I got too attached to the map and it wasn't the first map I got attached to which was Abandoned Homeworld which has its own flaws. Commenting about the area space behind the main I heard from many people that protoss wanted there space behind mains back so they could have easier time to harass, but maybe I went a little bit overboard.
|
I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that maps too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored.
In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field.
|
On September 30 2017 14:14 Crozo64 wrote:
I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that map too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored.
In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field.
I do think while most of the critiques here are solid, the fact that Uvantak plays zerg is noticeable  there may be a touch of bias even if he is trying his best to be objective.
|
Thsnks for the fredback! Really fills in holes in my knowledge and actually explains why -very constructive.Its not just the map that is stuck in early hots ... me too
|
On September 30 2017 14:14 Crozo64 wrote:
I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that maps too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored.
In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field.
idk about the openness of Odyssey, I do agree that the gold on it is excessive, same with avex playing around with the rest of the resources in the map, those changes were not necessary.
But yeah, the openness on Odyssey unless you have heard it explicitly said about the map, like, explicitly said (Not in passing mentioning something else, but on focus), I dont consider it to be the end of the world, but more like, the new required standard (probably slightly less open than that), the way I'm seeing things shape up you could make Odyssey even more open in the center than it is now, and only then you would start seeing serious problems other than what we are seeing right now (which atm tends to be for the relative distance between your and the enemy gold more than openness, openness just works as a multiplier to that distance).
Which is for the most part just metagame adaptation to the hydras+new map pool, I'm not going to tell you it isnt rough, because it is, but the comparative openness on Odyssey specifically isn't something too outrageous.
Here, did a thingy to show.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0rIiOkz.png)
Lerilak might be a tad too far to the right, but that's ok I suppose, no tears shed for that map.
On September 30 2017 15:51 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 14:14 Crozo64 wrote:
I see a lot of examples about siege tanks and chokes that might be imbalanced in favor of terran but dont forget that map too open with large paths are extremely zerg favored.
In my opinion ( and pro terran players who agree ) a map like odyssey for example is a pain in the ass as terran in tvz because of gold base and extremely wide field. I do think while most of the critiques here are solid, the fact that Uvantak plays zerg is noticeable there may be a touch of bias even if he is trying his best to be objective.
...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Huh. That chart is cool (though considering openness on a single axis has its limitations obviously). I'd definitely consider Mech Depot more open than not though. I think if I was given this chart I'd place Port Alek, Mech Depot and Odyssey further right.
|
I like that the chart has sequencer pretty far to the right. i always thought it was so weird that people thought it was a very chokey map. Like.. just because something has a ton of wide chokes doesn't make it chokey, right? It's the size of the corridors/chokes not the quantity, at least IMO. (and how often said corridors have openings in them to allow flanking) Maybe that is a somewhat ambiguous word though
|
On October 01 2017 11:40 Fatam wrote:
I like that the chart has sequencer pretty far to the right. i always thought it was so weird that people thought it was a very chokey map. Like.. just because something has a ton of wide chokes doesn't make it chokey, right? It's the size of the corridors/chokes not the quantity, at least IMO. (and how often said corridors have openings in them to allow flanking) Maybe that is a somewhat ambiguous word though
it's "psychological chokiness"... that was very much intentional lol
|
On October 01 2017 11:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Huh. That chart is cool (though considering openness on a single axis has its limitations obviously). I'd definitely consider Mech Depot more open than not though. I think if I was given this chart I'd place Port Alek, Mech Depot and Odyssey further right.
I was thinking of making a 2 axis one at the start, this is the initial one:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5NUafCf.png)
but then I would have needed to make a bunch more to explain how "Openness" (in this case the green peak) on SC2 maps drifts and varies over time and across different metagames and balance patches so by the end I would have needed to make like 4 of em, and aint nobody got time for dat.
Also, regarding Mech Depot, even when the map itself is pretty neutral and kind of open in certain areas it has these things:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0n2Sf0Y.jpg)
Red: Open areas. Cyan: Iron's-Choke points
These "pathways" which arent really open, but more like bridges or constant choke points, where big armies have no space to maneuver other than "go forward" and "go back", so it is definitely not an "open map" because even when it has open areas and the choke point themselves for the most part around the center are "rather open", the length those chokes have been elongated to mean that the chokes still will dictate gameplay but on a different way than what we are used to seeing.
On a mapping level I dont really like em, at a gut level, I see them as poorly executed passages, but truth is that I'm interested on how they play out, maybe they work really well with lurker comps (and for certain they work excellent with tank/bio comps), dunno, I think that even when at gut level im not sold on them. Hope they work ok overall.
|
Mech Depot is a gigantic enough map that forcing fights in those elongated chokes is quite difficult though. It does happen especially in front of the third, but most of the time you can get open battles if you want to. Zergs do quite well on Mech Depot (though that isn't solely due to the openness).
|
These "pathways" which arent really open, but more like bridges or constant choke points, where big armies have no space to maneuver other than "go forward" and "go back"
i believe the mapmaking term you're looking for is hallway or corridor
|
On September 19 2017 15:43 Youngrustler wrote:Norad Refinery + Show Spoiler +I would also like to hear some feedback on this map, some concerns I could see are the third options the one near the main being too far? Map not being too interesting? This map was more of my recent maps created so hasn't seen too much fine tuning. As for the other two maps I have seen your suggestions for Defender's Resort and working towards those and also watching the map tournament to see if there is any other more major issues I can see and fine tune. Aruarian seem to fall into the trap of a rush map that has a gimmic that was a standard lay-out. I also probably should stop trying to get two entrances into the natural into the contest, but I did anyways lesson learned. Thanks again for the feedback to me and others, since this is to help improve not to attack you or any of the judges decisions.
Sadly I lost what I had written about this map on a power outtage and really dont have the time to re-write it, but the gist of it was this;
Map is ok, pocket base is ok tho danger from siegetanks, that's not very good, the center of the map on my eyes isnt interesting at all, specially when you think about the attack pathways players/armies take in order to get to the other side of the map and attack the enemy third/nat, they basically dont change at all as the game progresses.
That lack of central choky pathway kind of kills the map for me and makes it overall less interesting, it is really a mixture of a considerable conglomeration of things, examples range from the rocks and collapsible rocks at the counter-clockwise thirds, to the lack of attack pathway variety, to the bases at the corners, lack of real "flanking" pathway to the third cloud kingdom had, and even when the map is macro and that makes up for that lack of pathway, it doesnt make up for the lack of interesting design that pathway brought to the overall design of the map.
+ Show Spoiler +Attack paths from Nat & Third:![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aaS2eRY.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +Attack paths from Nat:![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Ovr7TKv.jpg) Attack paths from Third:![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CG0kyQS.jpg)
I cant avoid but feel kind of bad for the which I consider poor review because this map was on my eyes very, very on the edge, it is probably considerably better than 95% of your standard blizz maps, and it would have made it in had there not been such a highly competitive category.
|
On September 20 2017 04:49 lorestarcraft wrote:
I would appreciate some feedback on Animal, especially on the concept of split gold bases.
Thanks,
Sadly Animal got cut rather early, because even when the gold bases are neat, it is not something that actually called the attention of the judges, most judges saw it as a gimmick more than anything else, the bases are basically winner's golds atm, and they allow for proxy hatches, or Z's taking them against P, and even when they are indeed exposed, as maps like Bloodboil or even going back to Expedition Lost or Foxtrot, Z's take the bases anyways. A gold base skews the overall balance towards Z, basically always, and that was a considerable concern here, tho what put the final nails was the 2 entrances to the natural base, the 2k diagonal rocks are simply not good enough, it leaves the players too exposed, you would need like 8k or 10k rocks in there, mineral wall, or something like that, and even then because of the way the nat is laid out if you did that it would kind of backfire because I see the base behind the rocks as an "alternative third" which then would become inaccessible. Not to mention that the entire position behind the rocks at the nat is strategically important to hold or at least keep an eye on, and 8 or 10k rocks would hamper the defensive capabilities of players trying to keep control of that area, or avoid enemy armies attacking through that area towards the main/natural.
Sadly this map, with this specific layout can't really be easily saved imo, unless you are willing to put considerable amounts of time reworking things around.
|
On September 19 2017 18:51 Meavis wrote:
Labyrinth
Looking to rework the center to make it less lane like, outside of that no major changes
I dont think making it "less lane like" is the option, but at the same time yes?
I think the option is to make the connections between the lanes wider, so armies can change lanes more easily. But here you would probably need to talk with other judges, not sure.
On September 19 2017 18:51 Meavis wrote:
Black lotus
Remove the rocks at the natural
Remove the rocks at the third
Close of the base in the corner with rocks to still have semi island bases on the map
Yeah, seems like good changes overall.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uQT6sd6.jpg)
|
On September 22 2017 00:47 NewSunshine wrote:I would like some feedback on my entries as well. + Show Spoiler [Cabin Fever] +I figure the rush distance is too short for its other features to work, but I want to just confirm. I get the impression it was discarded quickly for this reason.
Yeah, that's sadly one of the reasons, the other is that judges simply didnt saw it as a map which could be balanced, the natural base is simply too exposed, too easily abused. The fact that the "alternative" Nat bases are open to rushes and what not doesnt help the map, and with the small distances... It is a cool concept mapmaking wise, tho when it comes to the actual ladder, it is bound to create too many balance issues.
On September 22 2017 00:47 NewSunshine wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Celestial] +I guess my concern is, how well did it do, and what was the specific reason other maps were chosen instead? Looking back I feel its pathing is slightly convoluted.
Yeah, you nailed it there, the main concern was that the map is too chockey, specially for the current iteration of LotV with the very strong tanks+Liberators.
Mapmaking wise, the map itself has many areas which at least on my opinion show poor use of space, like the bridges in front of the lowground third bases, or the ramps in front of the third which could have used the space better.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RCe5R6H.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rMsesb6.jpg)
Overall, the map might need a fair amount of changes to spacing and what not. Now days maps like Echo, or this one, on my eyes simply wont work well over extended periods of time on ladder, with the tanks+libs plus any future change the dusruptors or other area control units, I just dont see choky maps giving players a stable enough metagame development. I think we need to do a shift and think more on BW levels of spacing, maybe not as much as BW itself, but something along these lines.
On September 22 2017 00:47 NewSunshine wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Gridlock] +Did this map hit any targets for what constitutes a New map, in the judges' opinion? Was it a blatant imbalance of some sort that knocked it out, or something more subtle?
It is pretty interesting working as judge and seeing people do the same core ideas and seeing how differently they execute things:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yIN52JT.jpg)
Unlike Meav's map which fell because of issues like turtling, and around the first ~3 bases, Gridlock didnt made it because of lack of openess and flanking in the center of the map. Even when the core idea is to have a central lane, the lane on Gridlock is simply too tight atm allowing for Tanks, timings and such to become too strong specially against Z (  ). Cliffing and all, the execution of the map is excellent, but balance concerns regarding the lack of openess in the middle is what finally meant the map didnt made it.
Also other technical things like the Mineral wall, it is a cute addition, but sadly without us being able to change the mineral counts on the base, it is just not good, if we were allowed to change resource amounts then it would work, but alas.
Also compounding on this, the small droppeable highground right besides the mineral wall, it is also probably too strong, again, if we were allowed to change it, then I guess you could get away with it like on Moonlight Madness.
Gold bases make me kind of icky, but they seem to work well enough here, as Z cant take them as Thirds, and both players should be able to take their own and more or less being able to defend it. I really like the corner bases aswell, but that's a me thing.
Cliffing around the map aswell might be eating too much space, I think that might have played a role regarding the central pathway of the map being too excessively chocky and without alternative pathways for flanking.
A small snipped, the clockwise bases "alternative fourths" at 2 and 8, I think you can change the mineral lines to be diagonal + Show Spoiler + and push them up a bit further to the edge without creating too many problems with siege tanks getting in range of the main base's ramp.
Other thing regarding around the Nat base is the ease at which Z's can wall off their choke point, and the fact that queens can't reach the main base ramp fast because the main base ramp right is beyond the edge of creep from the natural hatch.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RFuivQ8.jpg)
Might wanna read the feedback on ancient confines or Feedback on Neg's Anomaly for that:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/526915-tlmc9-feedback-thread?page=3#56
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mGFTgnQBRcrMkCC4Ide73uqKOT2qI4wLcyvVE3GNNks/edit#gid=1407801850
|
Much appreciated, will take the time to dig into this in a bit. Most of what I skimmed is stuff I learned and have started to practice since then, and I'm steadily refining my approach to layout construction. Thank you for taking the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wBumEgt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/n74eKvi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n0hEdn5.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/syCwgrv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4TLBKz7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qvQyKID.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cml58Mi.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RpeIz3V.png)
