|
On April 04 2014 10:43 SidianTheBard wrote:Here will be my first submission, I'm not actually sending it in just yet because I'm still experimenting with some gameplay options so I might change up a couple things, but figured I'd show it off and maybe it'll spark some ideas for other mappers. Korhal Carnage1v1 MeleeSize: 158x1548 spawn locations but players cannot spawn within the 4 closest adjacent bases from each other!
12 regular mineral bases!
1 gold base in the middle!
4 Extremely powerful watchtowers!
4 creepy crawly scantipedes!Top Down: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4x04aXq.jpg) Close Ups: + Show Spoiler +
I love the innovative style, yet as a player I see so many reasons why this map is completely unplayable.
|
On April 06 2014 10:27 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 10:43 SidianTheBard wrote:Here will be my first submission, I'm not actually sending it in just yet because I'm still experimenting with some gameplay options so I might change up a couple things, but figured I'd show it off and maybe it'll spark some ideas for other mappers. Korhal Carnage1v1 MeleeSize: 158x1548 spawn locations but players cannot spawn within the 4 closest adjacent bases from each other!
12 regular mineral bases!
1 gold base in the middle!
4 Extremely powerful watchtowers!
4 creepy crawly scantipedes!Top Down: + Show Spoiler +Close Ups: + Show Spoiler + Blizzard would be mad to not use this as an FFA map, and just as mad to not start looking for them after this. I like it.
It actually looks like a pretty crappy ffa map XD. FFAS want every player to have a chance at not dying in the early game. Here, it'll inevitebly devolve into a 4 player game.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E1i9qvM.jpg) [/url]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zVDiGkG.jpg) [/url]
|
Triskelion.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ASnZ5rl.jpg)
There is a minor balance issue to work out with two more ramps, but for the purposes of looking at it, it's pretty much done. If anyone is curious about the meta and how it plays out so far, or if anyone would like to help test it, I'll be checking back well before the deadline.
And yeah, first time poster. Sup dudes? :O
|
France9034 Posts
On April 07 2014 18:54 CoraBlue wrote:Triskelion. There is a minor balance issue to work out with two more ramps, but for the purposes of looking at it, it's pretty much done. If anyone is curious about the meta and how it plays out so far, or if anyone would like to help test it, I'll be checking back well before the deadline. And yeah, first time poster. Sup dudes? :O
Sup'!
Interesting, though the terrain level of the mains still bugs me way too much. Low mains would be quite an issue I'd say.
Otherwise, it seems a bit too clumped, like, there's no real open space anywhere on the map, apart from those brownish bases, and that could be a problem for some zerg playstyles.
I think Terrans would love this map a bit too much to be honest, and Protoss as well though a bit less.
My 2 cents, don't take it too seriously, that's mostly my (gold level) opinion. Oh and I really like the name and the general shape of the map 
Damn, I should've started making a 1v1 map 
Maybe starting one now and keeping it for the next contest, mmmmh.
|
Since they are kinda ready i think i'll show my submissions Only maps made before the contest announcement and modified a bit.
Providence
2-in-1 map
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zY7vyzO.png)
No-name Map
4players map
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NSGIU3m.png)
Sacred Path v2
Sud vs North / Est vs Ovest
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOMeXCE.jpg)
No-name Map
Sud vs North / Est vs Ovest
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eWIaGvm.png)
|
Those all look nice lez. ^^
But if that last one is meant to be 2v2... yuck for any team with one zerg facing double zerg. =\
|
On April 08 2014 02:57 IeZaeL wrote:Since they are kinda ready i think i'll show my submissions Only maps made before the contest announcement and modified a bit.
Oh hey. I've seen your maps in Shoutcraft. Providence looks extremely strong here, especially the bottom right and top left spawn positions.
Interesting, though the terrain level of the mains still bugs me way too much. Low mains would be quite an issue I'd say.
I completely understand why people are skeptical of lowground mains, but after watching a few pro players in Shoutcraft play on maps like this, I'm convinced that in certain situations it isn't a problem. It creates a really interesting dynamic in choosing your second base in this case. It also helps put a dent in blink.
You're safe from the right for the first 5:45 from a rush, 7:30 for tech, so do you go clockwise and take the highground to shut that down, or do you go counterclockwise towards an easier third and use the watchtower to spot attacks from the other side?
Otherwise, it seems a bit too clumped, like, there's no real open space anywhere on the map, apart from those brownish bases, and that could be a problem for some zerg playstyles.
You would think it would be a problem for Zerg, but ling counters are pretty strong, and swarmhosts can lock down areas fairly well on the map. It's one of those things where I wish I could see people play on it for sure though, to see if drops are too strong and if units are failing to get surrounds.
|
Check the mineral counts IeZ especially on the 1v1 maps, i'm seeing mineral fields that have 6 or 7 minerals instead of the normal 8, other than that they look quite nice i must say, i'm diggin' Providence quite a bit ^^
|
your Country52798 Posts
On April 08 2014 05:37 Uvantak wrote:
Check the mineral counts IeZ especially on the 1v1 maps, i'm seeing mineral fields that have 6 or 7 minerals instead of the normal 8, other than that they look quite nice i must say, i'm diggin' Providence quite a bit ^^
Yup, looks like a symmetry tool problem.
The various issues are found at:Providence:
- Top/Bottom main bases
1st no-name map:
- Top left third
- Top left natural
- Top center third
- Top right third
- Bottom right natural
- Bottom center third
- Bottom left third
Second no-name map:
- Top center base
- Top right main
- Bottom center base
- Bottom left main
The low ground thirds and the golds look weird too.
|
Thanks a lot the_templar , the simmetry tool is something really buggy , atleast for me. It just always fails to update correctly.
As for the layout issues , they're still not finished ^^.
|
France9034 Posts
On April 08 2014 05:15 CoraBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 02:57 IeZaeL wrote:Since they are kinda ready i think i'll show my submissions Only maps made before the contest announcement and modified a bit. Oh hey. I've seen your maps in Shoutcraft. Providence looks extremely strong here, especially the bottom right and top left spawn positions. Show nested quote +Interesting, though the terrain level of the mains still bugs me way too much. Low mains would be quite an issue I'd say. I completely understand why people are skeptical of lowground mains, but after watching a few pro players in Shoutcraft play on maps like this, I'm convinced that in certain situations it isn't a problem. It creates a really interesting dynamic in choosing your second base in this case. It also helps put a dent in blink. You're safe from the right for the first 5:45 from a rush, 7:30 for tech, so do you go clockwise and take the highground to shut that down, or do you go counterclockwise towards an easier third and use the watchtower to spot attacks from the other side? Show nested quote +Otherwise, it seems a bit too clumped, like, there's no real open space anywhere on the map, apart from those brownish bases, and that could be a problem for some zerg playstyles. You would think it would be a problem for Zerg, but ling counters are pretty strong, and swarmhosts can lock down areas fairly well on the map. It's one of those things where I wish I could see people play on it for sure though, to see if drops are too strong and if units are failing to get surrounds.
Oh well, you seem to have thought thoroughly about these points, good work! It would be interesting to see pros playing it
|
On April 08 2014 05:51 IeZaeL wrote:
Thanks a lot the_templar , the simmetry tool is something really buggy , atleast for me. It just always fails to update correctly.
As for the layout issues , they're still not finished ^^.
If you're doing any sort of rotational symmetry, you have to watch out for things like mineral footprints preventing proper placement due to their 2x1 nature. Generally, I'll only use the symmetry tool for the gas geysers, then do traditional copy/paste for minerals to ensure their proper placement in relation to the geysers.
|
On April 07 2014 18:54 CoraBlue wrote:Triskelion. There is a minor balance issue to work out with two more ramps, but for the purposes of looking at it, it's pretty much done. If anyone is curious about the meta and how it plays out so far, or if anyone would like to help test it, I'll be checking back well before the deadline. And yeah, first time poster. Sup dudes? :O
I really like this. Do you think that maybe the towers will be too strong seeing as they cover the only non-rock entrance to your base? It will be almost impossible to pull off a rush if your opponent holds his own tower and sees it coming from a mile away.
|
On this map I am worried about blink stalkers and terran cliff hopping with tanks. Wouldn't it be cool if the ramp was moved down here? It might make it difficult for zerg to get a third though.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XSquW1k.jpg)
|
I really like this. Do you think that maybe the towers will be too strong seeing as they cover the only non-rock entrance to your base? It will be almost impossible to pull off a rush if your opponent holds his own tower and sees it coming from a mile away.
This is a pretty good suggestion. I've experimentally moved the towers so that they only cover half of mid. A smart player can still rush by knowing where the towers cover (which means you'll need to scout where your opponent spawned). Let me know if you have feedback.
|
I like the representation of the tower range. Towers can be quite fun on this map seeing as you need at least two of them to see an attack coming.
|
@CoraBlue: You have a very interesting concept that turned out pretty nice in execution. I would recommend thinking about any ways you could possibly simplify the concept by reducing the number of rocks you need to block the back routes, and also adjusting the chokes around the map. There aren't really any options for attack routes with open space other than those seen by the towers, which aren't even that open.
@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
|
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.
|
your Country52798 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.
I was considering it but I sort of want to place this time around >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RJzMZIF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J7w4WvS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iQjMLMN.jpg)
