EPTTeamLiquid Map Contest 4 - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On April 09 2014 01:37 EatThePath wrote: @Plexa: Can we get your thoughts on this, specifically in regard to acceptability for TLMC? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/447881-walrus-symmetry I'm not Plexa, though my gut feeling says that it'd probably be accepted, but have a very low chance of winning. | ||
|
Ferisii
Denmark199 Posts
Cactus Valley ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9nXhpyQ.jpg) Welp, that's gonna be my entry. Been fun making it! | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On April 09 2014 04:11 And G wrote: If I can't think of another good W-sym layout besides Crusader I'll probably design a three player map that is basically an axially symmetric four player map but with one spawning location replaced by normal bases to make the map positionally balanced in all three spawning patterns, or perhaps a completely asymmetric three player map, since three player maps are inherently asymmetric anyway (unless they are 6-way symmetric). W-sym takes priority at the moment though. It wouldn't be completely positionally balanced though. In close positions, one player's later expansions would be a "normal" set of bases, while the other player's would be a main/nat setup (easier to defend by ground due to shared choke). | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On April 09 2014 03:04 TheFish7 wrote: Speaking of W-sym, anyone doing a, asymmetrical map? I was thinking of attempting this feat if I thought I could come up with a layout that wasn't insanely imbalanced. Well being picky, 3 players maps are inherently asymmetrical so i think you could count those as asymmetrical. I really don't think that even if you managed to achieve a balanced and fun asymmetrical would score that high anyways, because you need to take into account the view Blizzard has regarding the new players and the entry barrier for them. Here's one of the maps i'll be submitting it is not quite finished yet and it lacks a name still, but if anyone here comes up with something fun, i may take the name :3 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tAiBZHG.jpg) And some pretty pictures to scare my fellow mapmakers into submission >:D Muahahahaha  + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sy3s4OC.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9NiwTqE.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uZLlLl1.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u0g33OY.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M6k6lcd.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wp5I0eK.jpg) Also damn Ferisii those cactus look amazing with the flowers on top ♥ | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On April 09 2014 06:54 -NegativeZero- wrote: It wouldn't be completely positionally balanced though. In close positions, one player's later expansions would be a "normal" set of bases, while the other player's would be a main/nat setup (easier to defend by ground due to shared choke). That's peanuts compared to typical W-sym problems.  On April 09 2014 07:59 Uvantak wrote: The left ramp in that picture looks kind of dented, and it doesn't seem intentional. (Edit: Never mind, I see now it's just the debris and the lighting that makes it look that way...) Also, I see you have low ground mains. I'M NOT SCARED OF YOU! | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
| ||
|
Gene(S)is
Sweden419 Posts
Maps need to be ladder appropriate, that means no features that require specialist knowledge (rising lava, geysers used to block ramps, etc.) I I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 11 2014 01:21 Gene(S)is wrote: I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity. Talk to blizzard. =\ | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On April 11 2014 01:21 Gene(S)is wrote: I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity. There are a lot more built-in features for SC2 than there were in BW; Xel'Naga Towers, LOS blockers, destructible/collapsible rocks, etc. There's a lot that can be done with the tools Blizzard has provided, plus they're much more readable/easier to understand. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On April 11 2014 01:21 Gene(S)is wrote: I'm suprised. Brood War maps have had a lot of fun features like this. What's the name of that map with Dark Swarm placed on it... Paranoia? You shouldn't keep inhibitors on the creators as that can lead to blocking their creativity. Actually i'm surprised that Blizz decide to use Merry-go-round because it has air pathing blockers and those are known for being hard to recognize of where they start and where they end even if they are highlighted with other doodads because of the 3D view we have of the game. | ||
|
CoraBlue
United States24 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R0aP3w3.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YDjehTp.png) | ||
|
Arceus
Vietnam8332 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On April 06 2014 14:21 eTcetRa wrote: Also if you're still reading, Plexa, would you happen to know what they deem to be "excessive" in this case: I second this question. Especially, would filling unpathable terrain around the map with water be "excessive"? | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 11 2014 20:16 And G wrote: I second this question. Especially, would filling unpathable terrain around the map with water be "excessive"? Depends on how much unpathable terrain there is any map which we think it worthy of being a finalist that does not meet the QA regulations will be contacted so that the map can be changed to fit those prior to submission to Blizzard. Not meeting the art guidelines won't disqualify an entry, it will just add an extra step between finals and submission. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dmbDwoY.jpg) This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm. I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On April 12 2014 05:46 LaLuSh wrote: Feedback for IeZael + Show Spoiler + This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm. I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable. I can't even imagine all the amazing siege, reaper, and colossus shenanigans one could get up to if IeZaeL were to implement that feedback. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On April 12 2014 05:46 LaLuSh wrote: Feedback for IeZael + Show Spoiler + This would make a great BW map. I think it could make a good SC2 map too if the edges of the 9 and 3 o clock bases would be low ground pathable terrain that opened up a route to the expansions. Looks too easy for a race to cut another race off in the middle atm. I think this should be a 2 spawning position map if there is a way to make the low ground pathable. Actually it already is a BW map - it's a remake of Iron Curtain. | ||
| ||
