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.
I think it could be doable if the low ground was entirely surrounded by double elevation cliffs. But the current approach seems set up for reapers and such. So it wouldn't fit.
Doubt anybody would want to get their army stuck on that low ground if cliff walking was out of the picture. Shame SC2 doesn't have a stronger high ground advantage too.
My take on the map was that access to the expansions at the corners of the map needed to be opened up somehow. Feels liek the player that is behind is going to be choked down on 3 bases otherwise and squeezed in that quarter of the map without much prospect of breaking out or ever reaching other expansions on the map. That works in BW but not usually in SC2.
On April 12 2014 11:29 LaLuSh wrote: My take on the map was that access to the expansions at the corners of the map needed to be opened up somehow. Feels liek the player that is behind is going to be choked down on 3 bases otherwise and squeezed in that quarter of the map without much prospect of breaking out or ever reaching other expansions on the map. That works in BW but not usually in SC2.
I'm curious why you feel it doesn't work in SC2. My personal opinion is that people have gotten too comfortable always holding a capped economy.
I don't think level of comfort or what you or I think matters much.
Reason I think that there needs to be an alternative path is because I haven't seen many succesful SC2 maps with a lack of open attack/counterattack paths in the centre. The player that lacks control of the middle is going to be completely cut off from the empty mains unless they employ super passive play and slowly crawl fowards (swarm hosts).
Those green areas are the only areas you need oversight of to be 100% aware of any counterattack movements.
I made this other graphic for a different thread I'm writing on that shows how space tends to be used on a typical 4 player map in SC2.
4 player maps follow this formula regardless of whether you starve the players and provide them with only 3 easily accessible bases on their quarter of the map (fighting spirit), or if you do it like what is currently in fashion: cram 5 bases in a small area.
The difference is the community always spews hate on the starved 3-base 4 player maps. They produce predictable play. Always 2 or 3 base all-ins, nothing else.
So mapmakers default to the other option: "I'm going to cram loads of bases in a small area cuz players aren't going to use the space on the map even if try to force them by starving them of easily accessible bases. Plus my map will actually have a chance of getting picked/used this way".
It's possible my suggestion isn't even feasible for Iezael's map. But the above is my reasoning for why I even thought of suggesting it. To encourage/force more space on the map to be used, and not to make the middle area super restricted. What current 4 player maps at least have going for them is that their middle areas aren't cramped like it is on the iron curtain map.
I've already posted my KCKO map already but this is my actual full submission post. KCKO if it's okay (Plexa, let me know) can be submitted as a 1v1 map, but could also be submitted as a team (2v2) or even a FFA map. I've also created a new 4 player map named Into The Wilds that is pretty unique in it's own sense as well. (If I get more time I might work on the aesthetics of ITW a little more because I'm not completely 100% happy with it, but going to be pretty busy this next week so not sure if I'll have time to work on it) Lastly, I'll be submitting my 4v4 map that I submitted waaay back in TLMC 2 iirc. I made a couple tweaks to it but didn't change much else. KCKO and ITW are both published on NA/EU/KR and they are all unlocked so feel free to open them up if you'd like.
Good luck to everybody! Looking forward to seeing some of the other submissions!
On April 12 2014 21:01 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think level of comfort or what you or I think matters much.
Reason I think that there needs to be an alternative path is because I haven't seen many succesful SC2 maps with a lack of open attack/counterattack paths in the centre. The player that lacks control of the middle is going to be completely cut off from the empty mains unless they employ super passive play and slowly crawl fowards (swarm hosts).
Those green areas are the only areas you need oversight of to be 100% aware of any counterattack movements.
I feel like destroying the rocks and air options would provide some alternative. I do agree that the map could potentially result in split-map games, though. I'm also not convinced that it's the end of the world if a player gets "trapped" on 4 base; that's already more bases than a standard 3 base maximum economy, so you can keep a max economy going for a decent while. As for getting trapped in the first place, I think it's a player mistake in failing to establish map control. Am I wrong in assuming that should be a strategic priority for players to get ahead of (or at least keep on par with) their opponent on this map?
On April 12 2014 21:01 LaLuSh wrote: I made this other graphic for a different thread I'm writing on that shows how space tends to be used on a typical 4 player map in SC2.
4 player maps follow this formula regardless of whether you starve the players and provide them with only 3 easily accessible bases on their quarter of the map (fighting spirit), or if you do it like what is currently in fashion: cram 5 bases in a small area.
#YOLO. One of the things that always drives me nuts about 4p map design is how you have those vast areas that get unused, because you don't need 'em. We need more of this IMO (not the map in particular, but the idea that a macro game spans the whole map):
On April 13 2014 03:59 iamcaustic wrote:One of the things that always drives me nuts about 4p map design is how you have those vast areas that get unused, because you don't need 'em. We need more of this IMO
I completely agree with this, and I think the main design "features" that lead to this are a centre through which basically every major attack goes, and 3 or more bases per player that clearly belong to that player and can safely be taken regardless of where the opponent spawns. It's super noticeable on Frost where you have four bases in each quadrant, and even if you expand to an unused main, your opponent will still attack that expansion by going through the centre. I think 12 bases is a good number for an axially symmetric four player map if four of those bases are located at the edge of the map between spawning positions so neither player can take them when spawning adjacent, and so your position gets stretched laterally when spawning cross. This gives you four to five bases per player that can reasonably be taken and held, and two to four bases that may be contested between players in the lategame.
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 get the impression you don't know this is a 2v2 map. See Shoutcraft Clan Wars for example games.
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 get the impression you don't know this is a 2v2 map. See Shoutcraft Clan Wars for example games.
I believe IeZaeL was also looking to see if he could submit it as a 1v1 map, in which case the feedback would be addressed to that end.
this is Lava Oasis 2v2 map i hope is pleasing to the eyes of the master of mapmaking.[url=http://imgur.com/u5kqLAw][img]http://i.imgur.com/j2lqdZI.jpg[/url][/img]
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dmbDwoY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PRIn0xv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zg1WASf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SKE8IwLl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xG5R4sDl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5nEmUCE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/olR0pwr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BurGHDh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7eOzuie.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JkdnjhO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tjaTPAW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3GG9ndz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lrY8n6d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gnNGsSu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JfOWu1Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RwHEyUp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/65xyp3x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yUnQLNV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1fBMICy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OSTYmU3l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AeIMmBZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vaHfkGwl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KQdLZOU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z5R6MfY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2TLvYQ5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JtAp4Wj.jpg)
