WCSTLnet Map Contest 13 Finalists - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tony1
3 Posts
| ||
|
Superouman
France2104 Posts
On July 10 2019 05:50 Nightmarjoo wrote: Simulacrum Nice dynamic pathing, good balance of high/lowground, distinct-feeling expansion path choices Biosphere Messy but intriguing; probably one too many expansions though; maybe remove one each of the rocks at 3/9 Hurricane I like the heavy focus on highground control Avant Garde Blocking geysers with minerals is not fun; rest of the map seems neat, although I'm not a fan of backdoor expansions at all, but I like the central valley and the flanking opportunities it creates Zen Mineral blocks might be excessive, but I like the central valley vs side expansion dynamic Polaris The lowground 3rd is a mistake and should be removed from the map; the highground 3rd and lowground 4th are very nice; the pathing is a little annoying-- the way that it's so difficult for bottom left to get to top left for example, but I suspect this leads to interesting gameplay if it's not too constricted Zeta Orion I like the map a lot, but no one in the history of sc2 will take a min-only expansion-- you don't need an incentive to control the highground, it's the highground Purity and Industry Neat concept, but way too many expansions and the land-based layout is very messy-- needs a lot of work still Ever Dream Too many expansions frustrate an otherwise neatly simple layout; also while it's beautiful from a full-map-view it seems too plain at in-game depth Earthrise The lowground expansion due north/south of the natural expansion should be removed, and the walls that split the very center should probably be moved slightly away from the center (towards the expansion I want removed) to promote the southwest vs northeast dynamic; even with this it might have too many expansions Golden Forge I want to like it, but the cool ramp and valley pathing is no where near any expansion so the whole dynamic gets muddled up-- I think this needs remade from scratch with a more clear design that associates the pathing and expansions better Podcast Unbelievable mess-- too many expansions and incredibly annoying pathing; and do you really expect anyone to ever in the history of sc2 take the expansions facing the center? That concept is playable as seen in older maps, but not when it's that deep in the middle and so high up on the list of expansions to take (6th base?) Golden Wall Actually a really neat idea that was poorly executed-- the way to make this work is remake it from scratch with many fewer expansions so the players' choices are more important (and with bigger mains); also you probably want to make it a little easier to defend the main-backdoor-mineral path-- it's kind of a long ramp to wall off given that you still have to wall off the "front" ramp too; and while I like the top vs bottom dynamic, I wonder if the wall idea works better in a diagonally reverse symmetry, e.g. wall going from southwest to northeast Heyyy Nightmare Joel! :D I see that in most of your feedback you mention the high number of expansions. Currently, the "meta" of map-making is to give multiple expansion patterns that let players take at least 5 bases which is why there are so many bases. Also, the lower number of resources per base that lotv bringed reinforces that aspect. This has the effect to make the mined out map scenarios basically non-existent. I realized that recently and i'll see if i can figure out a way to make a macro focused map that has only 12 bases to make hectic and scrappy low eco/high tech scenarios more common. | ||
|
the p00n
Netherlands552 Posts
| ||
|
DSh1
253 Posts
| ||
|
Avexyli
United States684 Posts
On July 11 2019 03:31 the p00n wrote: I can't distinguish between anything (especially my own units) on the golden maps, even though this test gave me a perfect score. Anyone with the same issue? I don't understand what you mean here. On July 11 2019 03:51 DSh1 wrote: I don't know much, but I really miss the really small maps and hate the large maps. My banning patter in ladder is also always to just count the bases in the maps (since there are no 4 player maps anymore). Also think Sidian is right to dislike Maps being so similar. This is an asymmetrically balanced game that has various playstyles. LotV is designed to rush to the endgame, and punishes players for not expanding - thus maps become larger with higher base counts. Maps like Fracture did not perform well despite being exactly what you ask for. | ||
|
monitor
United States2386 Posts
On July 11 2019 07:03 Avexyli wrote: This is an asymmetrically balanced game that has various playstyles. LotV is designed to rush to the endgame, and punishes players for not expanding - thus maps become larger with higher base counts. Maps like Fracture did not perform well despite being exactly what you ask for. I agree that "small" maps are terrible and have bad gameplay. I think, overall, it is mostly because of the pathing changes between BW and SC2, as well as the shorter, more explosive army engagements. Other aspects of the race designs and gameplay designs in SC2, as you mentioned, also make short distances and forward expansions unappealing. I would like to add an in-between option, not simply the small vs. large map dichotomy, where we got to see a larger map (not massive like Cloud Monarchy) that only has 12 or mayyyybe 14 expansions with half expos that are well placed. Many of the reasons behind maps having multiple expansion directions could actually be flipped into being captivating features of a map that had slightly fewer options. [EDIT] Messed up quoting. | ||
| ||
|
| ||
