EPTTeamliquid Map Contest 8 - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Clarifications/Changes: Rush distance for Rush maps has been changed from "about 35-50 seconds" to "about 35 seconds". The definition of Macro map has been changed to: "A map that favors defensive play and encourages players to reach end game unit compositions." New Rule: You may use permanent neutral abilities onto all maps such as Force Field or Blinding Cloud. However, note that if these features cause performance issues on lower end computers, these maps may be edited or not considered for ladder. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On February 12 2017 18:33 The_Red_Viper wrote: I think Battle on the Boardwalk looks interesting, i doubt people would take the bases in the bottom corners though? That's where I have no clue. You can wall off the backdoor entrance (of your main) with 1 pylon. You can wall off the fast rush distance with 1 pylon as well. Would it be beneficial to wall of your main and take the corner bases? It's super choked? Sure it's a loooong ground distance but as protoss you can warp in...? Maybe take your main, corner base and the 6o clock base? You only have to defend your main ramp plus a ~3-4 grid choke? I have no clue but I think it could be very interesting to play! =) | ||
|
Elentos
55510 Posts
I just hope we'll see a bunch of brighter maps. I think for LotV we've had an oversaturation of dark 2-player maps on ladder. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On February 12 2017 18:44 SidianTheBard wrote: That's where I have no clue. You can wall off the backdoor entrance (of your main) with 1 pylon. You can wall off the fast rush distance with 1 pylon as well. Would it be beneficial to wall of your main and take the corner bases? It's super choked? Sure it's a loooong ground distance but as protoss you can warp in...? Maybe take your main, corner base and the 6o clock base? You only have to defend your main ramp plus a ~3-4 grid choke? I have no clue but I think it could be very interesting to play! =) If you play against terran i doubt that would be a thing tbh. Medivac drops would be too scary i think. Just too hard to get there with a good junk of your army it feels like. Still i think it's an interesting concept for sure | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
Also, make sure you guys post your maps in the Work in Progress Melee Maps thread so that you can get feedback and playtesters. And so that I can see what everyone is working on  | ||
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
Broken Earth ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0Vd7F6u.jpg) Khalis ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PXC0sKz.jpg) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On February 13 2017 12:07 ZigguratOfUr wrote: What categories are you submitting your maps for? They are normal maps so they don't fall into any of the lovely categories that Blizzard is giving us. 2nd could definitely fit in macro if cross spawns are forced | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
The vertical expansion paths are well set up and give many expansion options for the players. The center of the map is in an interesting layout with a really strong central position with limited movement options. I personally like how there are two towers on the platform as well. Battle on the Boardwalk: This is an interesting gimmick, and certainly much more acceptable than it would have been previously due to Blizzard's categories for this competition. I think that the top center area of the map is not going to benefit gameplay on this map. I don't think that both the south and the north areas should be so narrow. The top path benefits Terran a lot since they'll have incredible maneuverability with medivacs and ranged units that can shoot over the gap. The bottom path is quite radical, so I'm unsure which race it will benefit most. I think you should double down on using wacky expansions in this map, and place an island expansion in the top center. If one player is able to expand southward, a northward island will give the other player the option for a more sneaky expansion. This solves that issue best, since it makes the natural more safe by removing an entrance, and adds more depth to expansion options when it's already pretty deep. Lastly, I think the watchtowers would have a much higher value if they were located where the high grounds are between the thirds and fourths on the low ground. This way you'll be able to place a unit there defensively and be able to spot drops attempting to land between the main and the bottom corner expansions, which I think will be the location where most players will want to drop. The towers will still be able to spot enemy units approaching your natural through the narrow center path. I think that due to this map's unorthodox nature, you want to give the defender more of an advantage so that they can more adequately respond to harassment that could otherwise prove fatal if you're caught out of position. This should hopefully raise the spectator value of the map if there are many opportunities for micro and counter-micro. This map is definitely my favorite of your four submissions. Desolate Domain: I love the middle! There's such a high importance of controlling the middle here, which is a great feature for aggro maps since it rewards aggressive strategies. I want to make some comparisons to Daybreak as well. You have three paths in the center, but the rock placement is inverted (this works for your map since it is aggro, while the opposite worked for Daybreak to make it a more macro map). The gold expansions are located opposite the center path. Honestly I think this is the aggro version of Daybreak. Paradisia: Solid map. Does macro well. Nice to see a map using this type of symmetry as well. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On February 13 2017 13:19 -NegativeZero- wrote: 2nd could definitely fit in macro if cross spawns are forced The map does force cross, but even so it depends on what the judges consider to be a macro map. I think Khalis is noticeably less macro-y than the tlmc7 macro category finalists by virtue of where the fourths are. Though this does brings up a question: could the judges pick a map that doesn't fit the categories for the 3 "judge's pick" maps? | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On February 13 2017 13:29 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The map does force cross, but even so it depends on what the judges consider to be a macro map. I think Khalis is noticeably less macro-y than the tlmc7 macro category finalists by virtue of where the fourths are. Though this does brings up a question: could the judges pick a map that doesn't fit the categories for the 3 "judge's pick" maps? I don't see why not! It's the judges pick. They should be able to pick whatever map they feel should be in the top 15 that isn't. @Antares777 Thank you for the feedback! I originally was going to include a base at the 12 o clock spot in the map but then didn't want to open the path up a bunch more, I wanted to keep it somewhat choked. The entire vertical size of the map is only like 105 or so. It's a very "squished" map. Although I do think Terran could be quite abusive with the shorter aggressive path, the defender is able to set up a fairly big concave. One pylon can wall off that spot, so to attack through it with a larger army you're really funneling through almost 1 by 1. I'm hoping it'll only be used early game for...well...rushes! And if it ever gets to mid/end game I actually don't see it being used all that often for any type of attack besides maybe a run by? (although again just put 1 depot/pylon and it's walled.) | ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3693 Posts
| ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
Rush distance for Rush maps has been changed from "about 35-50 seconds" to "about 35 seconds". The definition of Macro map has been changed to: "A map that favors defensive play and encourages players to reach end game unit compositions." New Rule: You may use permanent neutral abilities onto all maps such as Force Field or Blinding Cloud. However, note that if these features cause performance issues on lower end computers, these maps may be edited or not considered for ladder. | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On February 13 2017 20:34 fluidrone wrote: Clarifications/Changes: Rush distance for Rush maps has been changed from "about 35-50 seconds" to "about 35 seconds". The definition of Macro map has been changed to: "A map that favors defensive play and encourages players to reach end game unit compositions." New Rule: You may use permanent neutral abilities onto all maps such as Force Field or Blinding Cloud. However, note that if these features cause performance issues on lower end computers, these maps may be edited or not considered for ladder. I'm not a mapmaker, so my question doesn't really matter, but which of the following would be allowed vs would not be allowed, given that performance would not be an issue?: permanent psi storms permanent Time Warp (affecting all units) periodically casting fungal growth in some specific location (affecting all units) pre-placed neutral stasis traps pre-placed neutral burrowed banelings pre-placed neutral widow mines permanent cloaking field (cloaking all units) neutral permanent parasitic bombs permanent guardian shields (affecting all units) or in general: what types of effects would be allowed? is it strictly non-damaging effects that affect all units equally (sch as forcefield and blinding cloud) or is the restriction looser than that? | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On February 06 2017 10:07 The_Templar wrote: TLMC7 had 130 maps and I believe TLMC6 had 116. Don't count the times I've retextured Delta Quadrant and submitted it. It never stops amusing me when people say it looks like a great map. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States694 Posts
AVEX - Windwaker ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MPNNrbVl.png<br>) AVEX - Eremita ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3dWy5fRl.png<br>) AVEX - Blood Boil ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SOLbnd4l.png<br>) AVEX - Hwangsan ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7c0L7bDl.png<br>) | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
It would be really crazy, but I think worth trying, to switch the start locations to the 2 bottom bases. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15919 Posts
On February 13 2017 23:45 Roblin wrote: I'm not a mapmaker, so my question doesn't really matter, but which of the following would be allowed vs would not be allowed, given that performance would not be an issue?: permanent psi storms permanent Time Warp (affecting all units) periodically casting fungal growth in some specific location (affecting all units) pre-placed neutral stasis traps pre-placed neutral burrowed banelings pre-placed neutral widow mines permanent cloaking field (cloaking all units) neutral permanent parasitic bombs permanent guardian shields (affecting all units) or in general: what types of effects would be allowed? is it strictly non-damaging effects that affect all units equally (sch as forcefield and blinding cloud) or is the restriction looser than that? also curious about: periodically casting nukes in some specific location Pre-placed neutral lurkers Neutral purification novas that explode once they touch a unit Neutral auto-turrets Neutral swarmhosts that spawn locusts Neutral liberation zones Pre-placed neutral siege tanks Neutral nydus worms at multiple places neutral ravagers that periodically cast corrossive biles Neutral 200/200 skytoss Neutral broodlord infestor | ||
| ||
