|
Hi all,
This thread is for my work in progress competitive melee maps that I would love feedback on! They are a blend of standard and experimental features, with relatively low base saturations. I'd love to have feedback on any and all of them - in particular, whether they are playable, too small, have too few bases, imbalanced features, etc. for the current meta in LotV.
Most recent maps:
Map 8
148x136
+ Show Spoiler +
Map 7
148x136
+ Show Spoiler +
Map 6 - layout WIP
+ Show Spoiler +
-----
Older maps
+ Show Spoiler +
All feedback is greatly appreciated!
Edit: Updated with the most recent maps.
|
Got another map to add that I'm looking for feedback on. Is it too small/too scarce in resources?
Map 4
148x136
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Map 1
- The main has a ton of surface area for drops, reapers,blink stalkers and so on. I think a bit too much? Not a fan of the shape of all these mains either--they're BW-like certainly, but I don't think it's great functionally.
- It doesn't look like you can reasonably wall-off that natural
- The natural isn't symmetrical. The mineral line isn't in the same location on both sides of the map.
- The base that's adjacent to the main is far away (and to get there you need to walk down a hallway overlooked by high ground), so I don't think it can reasonably be taken any time early.
- The four bases in the middle of the map look very hard to take due to where they are placed and the passages leading to them
Map 2
- The narrow high ground passages are interesting--not sure they need to be this narrow. I think if they were wider you can avoid the risk of obnoxious stuff like tanks/force fields/storm in those areas.
- I like the ideas of how the center vertical area is shaped
- If you want to have a low base count on the map, all the bases have to be viable. The base behind the gold in particular seems impossible to take. The gold itself is also a bit iffy--golds that can be taken early have to be risky, but I'd rather just see a safer blue base there.
Map 3
- Collapsible rock towers that fall on top of rocks are weird. If you destroy them before the rocks below are cleared they just deal 500 damage and disappear or something like that? I don't think it leads to any good gameplay
- I don't really like the King Sejong style base in LotV even as a third. Tanks from across the rocks are annoying to deal with, and here there isn't even terrain to prevent the attacking army to rotate from one side of the base to the other. Liberators are already strong against bases like that, and the mineral line being so close to the edge makes things worse.
- The middle is a giant overly open area.
- The Eastwatch-esque gold doesn't feel like it's anything but a hidden base. Destroying the rocks next to the third and taking it as a fourth could work, but then I'm not sure why it's a gold.
Map 4
- This main is really drop friendly since it's not in a corner. Heartbreak Ridge style maps aren't the best in SCII.
- The lack of good expos is a bigger issue here than the other maps. Apart from the odd gold which can only be held by certain races due to the openness of the area, the only third is very far away and not very defensible against drops.
- The middle is mostly a large open area
- Island bases are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
Thank you for taking the time to write out all of the feedback Ziggurat! I appreciate it.
As far as having mains in the corners, have you felt that Automaton has had poor LotV gameplay in GSL/IEM? It is the only current map with an alternative main design, but I am not sure what the consensus is as far as drop play on it.
It seems that one of the most important map design elements in LotV is 7-8 close, safe expansions per player. Would you say that has developed because of balance issues between races or gameplay issues? For example, I am trying to figure out if Map #4 would be undesirable to players/viewers because it would favor a certain race or because gameplay would be too drop oriented/aggressive early game (but not imbalanced). To me, the difference between these two reasons is crucial to know as a mapmaker.
|
re: your fourth map vs. Automaton, I'd like to draw attention to a few things that make them different--while I agree with you that I don't think centre mains are inherently bad, they need a few things to keep from being too hard to defense...
In automaton one of your natural thirds surrounds your main on one side, and one of your natural fourths surrounds it on another. This leads to you inherently having more vision set up on most sides of your main, giving you more time to react to drop play even if you aren't playing optimally. The contentious points of your fourth map are far away from the sides of the main, and one of the sides is even dead space with an island--makes defending drops just as hard as executing them with the requirements of players to spread units as spotters, erasing defender advantage.
I think the fundamentals of the layout can work but what if you did something like this?
(I didn't redraw all the other bases b/c I'm lazy)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cmqTxXQl.jpg)
Move the gold up a bit so it takes you around the main, change the islands to the middle so they're actually neutral bases, and extend the snakey high ground to accommodate?
|
Good points Syphon, that would certainly help with being able to defend the main. I like a lot of the ideas - and I think with a redesign of the center, the distances could be worked to be long enough for each split map scenario. I plan on doing revisions to each of the maps, so I'll try out some of the ideas when I get to it.
I tried my hand at making a standard map following the LotV criteria. Here's what I came out with. It was pretty quick, so I am sure there are still issues with the layout.
Map 5
156x136
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Now that one is pretty cool, I think the only work to do there is streamlining the geometry.
It's weird that 10 years later, I still pine for the simplicity of laying single tiles in the BW editor--if they ever make a major RTS release again, I really hope they do away with this incongruous 4x4 geometry chonks BS SC2 has. I just wanna stack some goddamn ramps right next to each other and have half the model not disappear--or draw a ramp on the edge of a pit. /rant
|
Thank you Syphon! I am happy with creating something relatively solid in about an hour (needs refinement of course, especially in the corners). Next I want to try to challenge myself to create some truly creative maps - I have a few ideas that I want to implement, keeping in mind the fundamental requirements for LotV.
|
On February 21 2019 06:43 monitor wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to write out all of the feedback Ziggurat! I appreciate it.
As far as having mains in the corners, have you felt that Automaton has had poor LotV gameplay in GSL/IEM? It is the only current map with an alternative main design, but I am not sure what the consensus is as far as drop play on it.
Drop play has by and large not been too big a problem on Automaton. Blink stalker play on it has received some complaints, mostly revolving around the fact that in PvT add-ons are much easier to snipe when spawning on the left side of the map than the right side. On top of what Syphon mentioned, Automaton's air distance is greater due to the mains not being on the same horizontal line. I don't think there's anything insurmountably problematic about having bases not be completely in the corner though.
It seems that one of the most important map design elements in LotV is 7-8 close, safe expansions per player. Would you say that has developed because of balance issues between races or gameplay issues? For example, I am trying to figure out if Map #4 would be undesirable to players/viewers because it would favor a certain race or because gameplay would be too drop oriented/aggressive early game (but not imbalanced). To me, the difference between these two reasons is crucial to know as a mapmaker.
Both gameplay and balance. For example PvZ in heavily favours zerg if the third is too exposed. That being said bases that are too safe can also cause problems, and quite a few maps do go too far in the other direction. In general six expansions (so seven bases total) is probably best.
|
Hey, you stole the snug gold base from  Ground Zero  (map 3)
I like your maps btw, even if they need balancing, they generally are more creative than the current map pool.
|
Thanks Rodya, I appreciate the compliment! And haha, I did not mean to take the third from Ground Zero, but that's true they are pretty similar! I am very interested in seeing how well placed dead-end expansions play in SC2.
Keeping in mind the idea of keeping main bases in corners and minimizing opportunities for blink stalkers/drops/reapers/tanks/etc., I made two somewhat experimental maps. The two unusual features are used are 1) tightly spaced mineral/gas lines that allow for more creativity designing the terrain around them and 2) unbuildable 50hp bricks behind mineral lines placed to prevent canon/bunker rushes. Do you guys think these solutions are feasible or is there a problem I am seeing?
Map 6
136x148
+ Show Spoiler +
Map 7
136x148
+ Show Spoiler +
The other issue with these maps that I see coming up is the lack of expansions past 6 bases. That said, the games I am watching in GSL/IEM tend to feature more aggressive plays, that rarely get past 5 bases per player (leaving most of the map unused). I wonder if there is a possible that SC2 maps could return to having 6-7 bases per player instead of 8 standard.
|
On February 23 2019 10:21 monitor wrote:Thanks Rodya, I appreciate the compliment! And haha, I did not mean to take the third from Ground Zero, but that's true they are pretty similar! I am very interested in seeing how well placed dead-end expansions play in SC2. Keeping in mind the idea of keeping main bases in corners and minimizing opportunities for blink stalkers/drops/reapers/tanks/etc., I made two somewhat experimental maps. The two unusual features are used are 1) tightly spaced mineral/gas lines that allow for more creativity designing the terrain around them and 2) unbuildable 50hp bricks behind mineral lines placed to prevent canon/bunker rushes. Do you guys think these solutions are feasible or is there a problem I am seeing? Map 6 136x148 + Show Spoiler +Map 7 136x148 + Show Spoiler +The other issue with these maps that I see coming up is the lack of expansions past 6 bases. That said, the games I am watching in GSL/IEM tend to feature more aggressive plays, that rarely get past 5 bases per player (leaving most of the map unused). I wonder if there is a possible that SC2 maps could return to having 6-7 bases per player instead of 8 standard.
I strongly dislike the idea of unbuildable bricks for a few reasons:
1. Cannon rushes shouldn't be hated out entirely (and aren't tbh all that big of a deal mostly). Two pylon walled off cannons are of course problematic, and three pylon walls can be if there isn't a lot of surface area on the pylons, but otherwise cannon rushes are mostly just fine.
2. Most of the time there aren't any cannon rushes which leaves a bunch of bricks for players to clean up to be able to build things (and also to avoid mis-clicking on them during harassment or battles).
3. You have to spread a lot of these bricks and not just behind mineral lines if you want to prevent cannon rushes. You could just be careful about how you shape the natural and main to avoid those cannon rush spots instead.
The idea of tight mineral lines is a bit more nuanced. Mineral lines have gaps for a variety of reasons--to allow workers to escape through them when banelings or hellions walk into the mineral line, to help the defender if there is a drop behind the mineral line, for units to micro through to get less surface area when fighting against zerglings and so on. So while having no gaps in the mineral line for individual bases (like on King Sejong), there are big consequences if you wanted it to be the new standard. Also if you want your mineral line to take less space you can use rich geysers.
As to SC2 maps with fewer bases, seven bases per player is already generally better than eight I think. Six is a bit iffy. While it's true that most games don't got past 5 bases (though zerg still does so with some regularity), it isn't always the same 5 bases, and you want players to have the option to be able to take the 'other fifth' if their preferred fifth gets denied or is difficult to re-take. Some layouts with six bases per player might work though.
|
I can understand those reasons, Ziggurat. I am trying to now find an in-between solution on some updates to my two most recent maps - in some cases, redesigning the terrain to eliminate all 2 hex spaces behind the natural/third minerals comes at a layout cost, so I've limited the number of destructible rocks to just 1 or 2 in critical spaces behind the natural minerals. I also spaced out the minerals back to the 'standard', because I agree that for SC2, it would take a lot for players to adapt to the change (though I think that actually, it may make defending drops/hellions easier if players prepare a correct sim-city and trap the hellions/rines/etc. With that said, here are some updates!
Map 6, Update 1:
+ Show Spoiler +
Map 7, Update 1:
+ Show Spoiler +
Both maps were adjusted to account for the change in mineral lines, as well as to have 7 reasonable expansions per player. At the moment, I am pretty happy with these layouts and intend on going back to earlier maps to update them! Thanks for the continued feedback.
Edit: Updated image of map 6
|
Nice to see you cranking out some maps again! I like maps 5-7, especially 7.
I agree with what Ziggurat is saying about the plates, it'd probably be better to just proportion the base and resources in such a way that cannon rushes are possible, but not overpowered.
It's refreshing for me to read about having maps with less bases on them. It's true that most pro games don't end up utilizing all of the resources, however Ziggurat again brings up some good points. Looking back at my recent WIPs, all have 16 bases except for Regent, which has 14 (that's also the only map I've managed to finish and publish). I suppose 7 bases each could work, but decreasing the number of bases could end up limiting options for the players. If you have a lower number of bases, I think the expansions would have to be less linear--so that players can pick and choose which base to take (especially the thirds), this way games will hopefully be less fixed and less repetitive, yet still maximize the amount of space on the map. Only two ladder maps have 14 bases (Year Zero and Cyber Forest), with both having two options of a third as opposed to three (I really haven't seen many maps with a fixed third recently at all).
I like map 7 a lot because it uses 7 bases each in a nonlinear manner. Players can essentially choose between 3 thirds, and then decide after how they want to expand to the remaining bases.
|
Thank you Antares! Nice to hear from ya. Stoked to be mapping, it's a lot of fun even if it leads nowhere.
I have actually wanted to a try a "forced" third design for a while now, so I made an attempt at it. I think it actually would work well in SC2 - it means that the map 'meta' can become more developed because players have a general sense of how it plays. We see this a lot in BW maps, where there is a specific meta for a map. I find it really interesting. I'm curious whether other mappers/players see a specific problem arising with forced thirds or if it's just a preference thing.
Map 8:
148x136
+ Show Spoiler +
|
OP Updated with my most recent map update - an updated version of map 8, including aesthetics.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
How do people feel about trying 4p maps, if they offer something that 2p maps can't? I agree with the criticism that most 4p maps would simply be better if they were turned into a 2 player map. However, one of the nice things that 4 player maps offer is added variety to builds/strategies that cannot be achieved with a 2p map: changing game styles when in close spawns vs. far spawns, built-in "balance" between long and short games because there are automatically 16 expansions, including many safe expansions, though distances are shorter than usual, and asymmetrical yet balanced gameplay when done correctly.
For these reasons, I'm trying my hand at a few 4p maps next to see what is possible!
Map 9
156x156
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Hey ya'll! I am back making a few maps and I would love feedback. Here is a layout that I am experimenting with only 6 bases per player - with the goal of reaching a mined-out map scenario more often than we are currently seeing with the tournament and ladder maps. Do you guys think this is feasible?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/v0lnR2G.png)
|
i think it's a cool idea and with Lotv economy it could result in more games that not only mine out but mine out on midgame tech instead of late deathballs. there's always resistance to new ideas that change how matchups play, especially from whiny pro players, but i think it's cool to keep things fresh and push boundaries
|
Thx for the input brickrd! I am definitely in the same boat.
I have one more map that utilizes island bases, as well as fewer bases than usual (6 bases per player, and then two additional island bases that can only be used in rare lategame scenarios). Any feedback is appreciated.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y28aoaz.png)
And updated the first map:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Z401eWX.png)
Both of these maps are very conceptual, and do have unusual layouts. The snow map is focused on middle vs. outer pathways, while the grass map is focused on small paths vs. large paths.
|
I like the older one that you've been working on. It seems reminiscent of Match Point. I wonder how the low base count will effect gameplay.
I don't know how I feel about the map with islands yet.
|
Don’t know if you want / care about looks / tileset feedback. But if you do, I think these maps would be a lot nicer in schemes that didn’t have quite so much blue and white.
There is a lot of research saying the exposure to blue light in the few hours before going to sleep has seriously reduce sleep quality. Since a lot of people play SC2 at night after they get home from work the blue / white light on some of these maps is pretty brutal.
Edit: just as a note I like the colors in map six a lot.
|
Thanks for the feedback Antares and Winter!
Do you guys still use the map cave?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/sn4G5O6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LQolx2x.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MVUwhbh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MQZ0qH6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AfafUG6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1J9urp4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/gq9UIpq.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CX7e6WN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QtXvvQh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bsc1sFf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/011HI19.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xPs1BMf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GwZlLJJ.png)
