On March 29 2014 14:15 LongShot27 wrote: Too many restrictions, I don't expect to see any viable maps out of this
Why is that? Almost all of the restrictions are completely reasonable, with the only controversial one being the refusal of 2 spawn maps (not really a big deal, since there are plenty of other spawn options).
I'm all for multispawn maps only, we definitely need more interesting ones and more of them. I'm rather disappointed that 2-in-1 maps are allowed; I assume a lot of people will try to do this as a way to make a 2p map, because that's all they are. As a component of a map pool, 2-in-1 maps are rather gimmicky and not a good stand-in for the generally higher quality 2p maps you'd have instead in that slot.
On March 29 2014 15:35 EatThePath wrote: I'm all for multispawn maps only, we definitely need more interesting ones and more of them. I'm rather disappointed that 2-in-1 maps are allowed; I assume a lot of people will try to do this as a way to make a 2p map, because that's all they are. As a component of a map pool, 2-in-1 maps are rather gimmicky and not a good stand-in for the generally higher quality 2p maps you'd have instead in that slot.
I don't think it's really fair to dismiss 2-in-1 maps as gimmicky. In a way, cross-spawn only 4p maps were a form of 2-in-1 maps; identical terrain design, but different angles. That would be the other end of the spectrum from gimmicky 2-in-1 implementations, but I definitely think there's a middle ground to be had. There really hasn't been a lot of experimentation in the area.
On March 29 2014 15:35 EatThePath wrote: I'm all for multispawn maps only, we definitely need more interesting ones and more of them. I'm rather disappointed that 2-in-1 maps are allowed; I assume a lot of people will try to do this as a way to make a 2p map, because that's all they are. As a component of a map pool, 2-in-1 maps are rather gimmicky and not a good stand-in for the generally higher quality 2p maps you'd have instead in that slot.
I don't think it's really fair to dismiss 2-in-1 maps as gimmicky. In a way, cross-spawn only 4p maps were a form of 2-in-1 maps; identical terrain design, but different angles. That would be the other end of the spectrum from gimmicky 2-in-1 implementations, but I definitely think there's a middle ground to be had. There really hasn't been a lot of experimentation in the area.
I would dismiss cross spawn 4p on the same grounds and as a bad quick fix.
All I'm saying is 2-in-1 is categorically different than multispawn so I don't think it should be included if the goal is multispawn maps, but if the gimmick value of a coinflip 2p bundle counts for getting away from "true" 2p for the purposes of variety, so be it. You know I will always root for gimmicks even as I blithely label them as such with apparent condemnation.
It might be a crazy stupid idea, but could toppling rock towers be used to create a destructible (or permanent) "bridge" between two highgrounds that units can pass?... I think that could be quite an interesting gimmick to have to allow certain timings and positional plays.
Aww I thought I had a good map and bam I placed all the minerals wrong. Going to have to read through more tutorials, are there any links to example 4 player maps I can look at?
On March 29 2014 23:11 KatatoniK wrote: Aww I thought I had a good map and bam I placed all the minerals wrong. Going to have to read through more tutorials, are there any links to example 4 player maps I can look at?
If you go File > Open > Battle.net > Login > Search
You can search for maps on battle.net. For instance, do that and search for Frost, you can then load up Frost and look around the map to get a feel for it. Also, if you want to place mineral fields properly you can just select the mineral fields in Frost and just copy/paste them into your map. Then you'll know they will be correct.
On March 29 2014 04:07 Plexa wrote: The following map art guidelines should be followed to ensure a smooth QA process if the map is in contention for WCS/ladder use: - Avoid excessive use of water - Avoid weather effects like falling snow, snow drift doodads, etc. - If using the Ice tileset, avoid using the CliffGlacier* doodad series - Avoid excessive stacking/overlapping of doodads in concentrated spaces - Excessive use of decals, custom decals - Excessive use of doodads that produce dynamic shadows - Doodads under the terrain - Clusters of large/complex doodads
"Doodads under the terrain"? Like, lowering doodads until you can't see them anymore? Why would anyone do that? I must be missing something here...
On March 29 2014 04:07 Plexa wrote: The following map art guidelines should be followed to ensure a smooth QA process if the map is in contention for WCS/ladder use: - Avoid excessive use of water - Avoid weather effects like falling snow, snow drift doodads, etc. - If using the Ice tileset, avoid using the CliffGlacier* doodad series - Avoid excessive stacking/overlapping of doodads in concentrated spaces - Excessive use of decals, custom decals - Excessive use of doodads that produce dynamic shadows - Doodads under the terrain - Clusters of large/complex doodads
"Doodads under the terrain"? Like, lowering doodads until you can't see them anymore? Why would anyone do that? I must be missing something here...
well I currently have a 2player map in the wait till the contest is over which uses underground gas clouds for some interesting particle effects, it wont hurt the lagg because theyre not visible at all on lower settings.