|
Ohhhh so much stuff to write...
Well first things first:
@RumbleBadger - I'm not a mapper myself, but I think making the middle a bit bigger, and giving it more terrain to make a more cirkular middle might help a lot. As it is now, zerg have no way of circumventing an opposing army in the middle, but with a bit more restrictive middle they will. The middle need to be larger if you make this change, just so the paths are not narrow and easy to hold.
@fenX - now THAT looks good. Others have given ideas for tweaks, so I will just appreciate how well that map is turning out.
@HypertonicHydroponic: AAAAAAaaaaa... - okay now for serious analysis: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh, that map is maddingly wierd. First off - there are two entrances to each base, and thats a no-go in mapping. Walling in is impossible, and the map will easily turn into a coinflip. Secondly, the map is just too small. Thirdly, there is no "dead space" so things like reapers wreck this map. The idea is good, but you need bigger clearer defined mains with only one entrance, move the madness from the mains to the naturals and third/fourth instead and it could become very interesting.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9iIBu.jpg)
this is what i quickly came up with. i am on vacatio for a few days, but i might be back in time to produce this as my own contribution to this challenge.
i hope some of the other judges and the challenger FlopTurnReaver will join us in this thread soon.
|
|
|
I would love to see that in normal map view - its an interesting solution to the problem with a tight middle, and it just might work. I can't see any way any race can lock down the middle completely now, and the close 3rd/4th for 5 o'clock is less of a problem.
Unless you go mad with theorycrafting, the only way to improve this map IMO is trial by nerds.
|
On September 01 2011 04:32 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I would love to see that in normal map view - its an interesting solution to the problem with a tight middle, and it just might work. I can't see any way any race can lock down the middle completely now, and the close 3rd/4th for 5 o'clock is less of a problem.
Unless you go mad with theorycrafting, the only way to improve this map IMO is trial by nerds.
Thank you! =D And I like the phrase trial by nerds.
Here's a fully textured angled and overhead view (forewarning: the water near the top in these pics looks like crap, it looks much better in game, so don't judge too hard =D):
+ Show Spoiler [Overview] +
+ Show Spoiler [Angled] +
By the way, I'll probably be calling this map Stepway...
|
If you want to improve contrast for the different cliff levels on the analyzer output so you can see them clearly in the summary, you can change the terrainElev variables in the colors.txt file in the map analyzer folder.
I'm using this combination, it seems to work ok with the green-blue openness color scheme.
terrainElev0 = 0x000000
terrainElev1 = 0.1, 0.1, 0.1
terrainElev2 = 0.4, 0.4, 0.4
terrainElev3 = 0.7, 0.7, 0.7
and your map is looking really nice btw.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Hi there, i'm back from vacation and after laying at the beach during daytime i also had some time to create an asymmetric map.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nD1Vk.jpg)
Connected spawns (small passage for reapers) are disabled (5+7 and 9+11). As you can see all spawns are on the same half of the map (i consider this unique at least for a 4 spawn). Chokes can be blocked with 1Rax/Gate+1Depot/Pylon. Rush distances are mostly around 160 (main 2 main) and around 105 (nat 2 nat). I don't consider this map well balanced but any small advantage also leads to a small disadvantage (f.e. 9 o'clock has it's nat close nearby but the main minerals have their back next to the huge void space behind the main area (hello there air).
Would really be interested to see mappers create more such maps (with improved balance/layout/... BUT) with all 4 spawns on the same half to create a real new 4 spawn experience for the players and viewers (rotational and reflected maps are overdone).
Map isn't uploaded yet.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Hi! I've made a few maps in my time, and really enjoy mapmaking, but I've never had the confidence to post any of them, so this is the first map I've actually posted. Textures are nowhere near complete - that's a job for after the map's considered tolerably designed - but basic textures have been placed for sanity's sake such that the map isn't just one texture.
(small personal note: this was difficult for me because of how painstaking I am about map symmetry, and I think that shows in the map's design)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7jE6z.png)
Name: Geostationary
Playable size: 144x144
Full size: 176x176
Player count: 3
Tileset: Castanar (Installation)
Playable as: Melee (1v1), Melee FFA (1v1v1)
Published to Battle.net North America as Geostationary
Images in spoiler tags:
+ Show Spoiler +
Criticism is highly desired (and needed), because I don't have friends to playtest my maps with.
|
@Glexarn - Well its kinda obvious that you are no good at breaking symmetry, but hopefully your further work on this map will break it up a bit. It looks like a solid map, but some more work is needed.
The map looks a bit small and open, you might want to move some expansions further from the center to make it less "arenalike". Secondly the main-nat distance of each base looks amazingly short and the mains themselves are quite easy to defend from everything but reapers. I think you need smoe vulnerability to prevent two base turteling.
It also looks like the 2 is at a disadvantage against 11 in taking a 3rd base.
@dezi - Looks solid, but its kinda symmetrical along the 2-8 o'clock axis, and there are small but clear advantages in spawning in the outer positions rather than the inner positions.
|
On September 02 2011 01:19 Glexarn wrote:Hi! I've made a few maps in my time, and really enjoy mapmaking, but I've never had the confidence to post any of them, so this is the first map I've actually posted. Textures are nowhere near complete - that's a job for after the map's considered tolerably designed - but basic textures have been placed for sanity's sake such that the map isn't just one texture. (small personal note: this was difficult for me because of how painstaking I am about map symmetry, and I think that shows in the map's design) Name: GeostationaryPlayable size: 144x144 Full size: 176x176 Player count: 3 Tileset: Castanar (Installation) Playable as: Melee (1v1), Melee FFA (1v1v1) Published to Battle.net North America as Geostationary Images in spoiler tags: + Show Spoiler +Criticism is highly desired (and needed), because I don't have friends to playtest my maps with.
you know, that sounds incredibly lonely, I would suggest you just make some SC2-friends, chitchatting with people in ladder and then asking if they want a rematch after the game regardless of the outcome is an excellent way of finding people to play with that are even with you in regards to skill, I recently played with a guy that forgot to turn his race back to protoss from zerg when in ladder queue and I asked him if we could play some more later, we are now placed in platinum 2v2, it was really fun.
as for the map, you are right, it looks very much like a 2 player mirrored map which had a 3rd player forced in, which made it non-mirrored, but some things that could be worked with is:
1. size and shape of the mains, as you already know, each main is identical, but rotated and/or mirrored versions of eachother, changing them to not fit each others shape would force a massive change in the layout of the map around it.
2. the attackpaths of 2-4 look identical, changing 1 attackpath will, as in 1, force a change in other things around it/them.
I am not a very experienced mapmaker, else Im sure I would have more feedback.
have a good day.
|
On September 02 2011 01:19 Glexarn wrote:Hi! I've made a few maps in my time, and really enjoy mapmaking, but I've never had the confidence to post any of them, so this is the first map I've actually posted. Textures are nowhere near complete - that's a job for after the map's considered tolerably designed - but basic textures have been placed for sanity's sake such that the map isn't just one texture. (small personal note: this was difficult for me because of how painstaking I am about map symmetry, and I think that shows in the map's design) Name: GeostationaryPlayable size: 144x144 Full size: 176x176 Player count: 3 Tileset: Castanar (Installation) Playable as: Melee (1v1), Melee FFA (1v1v1) Published to Battle.net North America as Geostationary Images in spoiler tags: + Show Spoiler +Criticism is highly desired (and needed), because I don't have friends to playtest my maps with.
I agree that the map could use a little less symmetry. As Roblin says above, I would suggest making one change at a time and then working though the changes that are forced on the rest of the map to support the change, that's how I did alot of the work on my own asymmetric map.
Also it looks like the central bases will be almost impossible to hold for any player, with the combination of the central watchtower, the cliffs behind the minerals and the super-narrow entrance ramps, I can't see how any player could justify the risk of expanding to any of the bases there.
@Zaphod Beeblebrox
The map size is fine imo, I think 160 rush distance main2main is reasonable (xelnaga carverns is around 140), I was actually expecting around 120-130 main2main from the overview and was surprised when it was as long as it is.
edit: spelling
|
i am really looking forward to how this turns out
i always loved asymetrical maps
|
This seems like a pretty cool concept, and some of the maps are looking awesome lol ;o Anyway I'm giving the comp a go myself, here is the top down look so far:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zeu37.jpg)
Some map analyser pics:
http://i.imgur.com/Cww8x.png
http://i.imgur.com/w8A0U.png
I've already started texturing and decorating, but thats mainly because I'm still new to the editor and am just trying to figure out how to get a nice natural look to things.
I had some difficulty with the symmetry, I think the main and natural might be classed as such - is it? :o Any other feedback is welcome! lol
|
your Country52797 Posts
Can I make a team map?
If so, what are the requirements?
|
Ok in reverse order:
@ TehTemplar -- it doesn't seem to say this is limited to 1v1 concepts only, I think you should go for it. The OP just seems to say it has to be asymmetrical.
@ Zaphod Beeblebrox -- Where your map, bro? You seem to talk a big game for someone who has no map here and is also not a judge. Telling someone they aren't good at not doing symmetry? That's just not right dude. Please stick to map critcisms and not mapper criticisms.
As for what you had to say about my map, did you or did you not post this: this and this? You mention being interested in seeing mappers use clear imbalances to make an overall balanced map. And yet, you seem by your criticisms of my map (and others here) to just want more of the standard same old. Do you not see why I am inclined not to take your criticism very seriously?
I know full well that many of the features of the map are horrible for each race, and that's the point. Balance in imbalance. Yes, this challenge is specifically about asymmetry, but symmetry is one of the factors that brings more or less balance to a map. I decided to try a more extreme form. Have you ever played on The Hunter/Big Game Hunters? Expedition? Cauldron? The maps are pretty are pretty imbalanced symmetry wise, but they offer very fun games. I dare you to do take just a little bit more analytical a look at all of the maps here and not write down the first thing that jumps to you.
@ Glexarn -- I think you have an interesting map concept there. It is definately not completely symmetrical, but it is also not completely asymmetrical either. I don't know if that loses you points for this challenge, but I think it makes for an neat idea. If I had to invent a symmetry notation to describe your map, I would draw a line from upper right to lower left, another from a little left of dead center to middle right, and a curvey arrow from the middle to middle top with the concave on the right side. I think the map could show some interesting games, but I would probably move the Xel'Naga tower in the middle to right of the middle three bases so that it could see the thirds since you already have a tower that can see two of the middle bases. Otherwise, there does not seem to be much point to those bases being separate. Just my thought.
@ Dezi -- Nice idea, only one comment. It looks like the 6 (mineral only?) third is siegable from 9. This may be intended due to the 9 being more easily banshee harassable but I just thought I'd throw that out there (don't know why I see TvT for this map, heh).
@ FenX -- Yup, I fully plan on needing a bodygaurd.  I was toying with the idea for the map title to be sometihng like "Masochism" but I decided to go with something just a little bit more subtle (that and the name is probably already taken). I realize the full extent of my sadistic-ness in that map, and am proud of it.
Here's the thing about making the map bigger to support larger mains, the rush distances of the far bases then become a lot more unmanagable. As it is, the furthest rush distances go up to 218. I will address this more below, but to be able to fit seven onto a map without it just being just seven mains with a big open middle or a big hetpapus (octapus missing a tentacle), you are going to have to make some mapping decisions that are not going to be as popular or at least as mainstream. I went there.
@ RumbleBadger -- Thank you for the kind words.  Player pain aside, I too think this will end up being pretty balanced, even if more difficult than standard maps. I don't think scouting will take you as long as you think, but I think you will need to paradigm shift slightly and consider using a dual scouting route. One scout will go to the clockwise three bases, and the other will go to the counterclockwise three bases. If you don't find your opponent by the second base in that direction, you can be pretty well assured you are in for a long game. If you scout your opponent right away, you will need to consider walling off your near side and expand away. It will still probably end up being a very short micro game, but at least you cannot get walled in, and you can still try to macro up.
General comments: I've been considering the feedback and taking a look at the ground distances. But the more I do the math, the more I actually like it. Yes, the short distances are quite short, but there is really only a 1/3 chance that your opponent has spawned in one of the two close locations. If you send two scouts out on 9, you should be covered as far as knowing what kind of game you are in for. If you do not have an opponent at a neighboring base, you should be able to macro up quite a bit given the number of expansions and the fact that all of next bases over have decently lengthy ground distances (with the exception of the 6-9 distance). Also, even though there are many short distances, they go through many chokes/ramps that serve to mitigate some of that "problem".
I do not see the fact that each race will have to adapt the play style to fit the map to be a detriment. The best players do this anyway. Terran and protoss will have to build production along with their expansions, zerg will have to utilize the multiple routes to different locations, tanks, air, burrowed banes, drops, nydus, warp will have a heavier focus, builds will have to take into account the three different distance games, but I do not see any of that as insurmountable or map breaking. It'll be a chance to try things out that do not work as well on other maps simply because there are all of the straightforward wide paths and dead-end mains. I'm not saying those maps are bad, but they are standard. While this challenge is technically just about the symmetry, I wanted to take it to another level, so there it is. The only real concern I have is for the 6-9 ground distance since it means three potential close games for each base, but at the moment I justify that by the fact that those two bases are the most flexible as far as expanding and moving out that the extra risk I think is acceptable for now. I'll see how it plays out.
Anyway, for those who are interested in getting something out of all the analyzer shots, I have compiled the rush distances to a much more easily read and comparable format and have also done a little work on figuring out how scouting should work.
+ Show Spoiler +
One base over (Next)
2-4 = 89.7
4-6 = 73.0
6-7 = 88.4
7-9 = 95.3
9-11 = 116.8
11-12 = 107.9
12-2 = 76.3
avg. 92.5
Two bases over (Skip1)
2-6 = 151.0
4-7 = 158.7
6-9 = 83.1
7-11 = 183.9
9-12 = 143.3
11-2 = 172.2
4-12 = 147.8
avg. 148.6
Three bases over (Skip2)
2-7 = 212.7
4-9 = 151.0
6-11 = 193.1
7-12 = 193.1
9-2 = 183.9
11-4 = 218.1
12-6 = 168.5
avg. 188.6
Avg. per base
2 - Next: 83 - Skip1: 161.6 - Skip2: 198.3 - Total: 147.6333
4 - Next: 81.35 - Skip1: 153.25 - Skip2: 184.55 - Total: 139.71667
6 - Next: 80.7 - Skip1: 117.05 - Skip2: 180.8 - Total: 126.18333
7 - Next: 91.85 - Skip1: 171.3 - Skip2: 202.9 - Total: 155.35
9 - Next: 106.05 - Skip1: 113.2 - Skip2: 167.45 - Total: 128.9
11 - Next: 112.35 - Skip1: 178.05 - Skip2: 205.6 - Total: 165.333
12 - Next: 92.1 - Skip1: 145.55 - Skip2: 180.8 - Total: 139.48333
Scout paths (clockwise - parenthesis shows how much more distance than direct by ground):
2 - To4: 89.7 - To6: 162.7 (+11.7) - To7: 251.1 (+38.4) - To9: 346.4 (+162.5) - To11: 463.2 (+291) - To12: 571.1 (+494.8)
4 - To6: 73.0 - To7: 161.4 (+2.7) - To9: 256.7 (+100.1) - To11: 373.5 (+155.4) - To12: 481.4 (+333.6) - To2: 557.7 (+468)
6 - To7: 88.4 - To9: 183.7 (+100.6) - To11: 300.5 (+107.4) - To12: 408.4 (+239.9) - To2: 484.7 (+333.7) - To4: 574.4 (+501.4)
7 - To9: 95.3 - To11: 212.1 (+28.2) - To12: 320 (+126.9) - To2: 396.3 (+183.6) - To4: 486 (+327.3) - To6: 559 (+470.6)
9 - To11: 116.8 - To12: 224.7 (+81.4) - To2: 301 (+117.1) - To4: 390.7 (+239.7) - To6: 463.7 (+380.6) - To7: 552.1 (+456.8)
11 - To12: 107.9 - To2: 184.2 (+12) - To4: 273.9 (+55.8) - To6: 346.9 (+153.8) - To7: 435.3 (+251.4) - To9: 530.6 (+413.8)
12 - To2: 76.3 - To4: 166 (+18.2) - To6: 239 (+70.5) - To7: 327.4 (+134.3) - To9: 422.7 (+279.4) - To11: 539.5 (+431.6)
(this basically just shows that it is optimal scouting to send two scouts, and for one to go three bases clockwise and the other to go three bases counterclockwise. "over" is total distance over sending one scout to each base; "diff" is the difference in distance between the two scouts finishing their routes, I am not sure how to convert this to game seconds.)
2 - 4r/2l over: 174.5 diff: 162.2 - 3r/3l over: 155.5 diff: 49.9 - 2r/4l over: 195.3 diff: 233.6
4 - 4r/2l over: 173.6 diff: 207.5 - 3r/3l over: 155.9 diff: 17.2 - 2r/4l over: 242.4 diff: 229.3
6 - 4r/2l over: 251.6 diff: 245.7 - 3r/3l over: 177.9 diff: 61.5 - 2r/4l over: 254.4 diff: 163.2
7 - 4r/2l over: 186.3 diff: 234.9 - 3r/3l over: 165.3 diff: 68.9 - 2r/4l over: 162.5 diff: 115.3
9 - 4r/2l over: 340.3 diff: 207 - 3r/3l over: 217.2 diff: 44.3 - 2r/4l over: 243.9 diff: 121.7
11 - 4r/2l over: 182 diff: 134.8 - 3r/3l over: 163.2 diff: 26.6 - 2r/4l over: 167.4 diff: 189.3
12 - 4r/2l over: 215.7 diff: 102.7 - 3r/3l over: 197.4 diff: 81 - 2r/4l over: 258.1 diff: 242.4
Edit: Forgot to mention -- @ FenX -- there are no 4min 0gas locations. There is one 3min 1gas, location, and a random sprinkling of gas on the low ground, but every high ground is 8min 2gas, and every mid ground (with the noted exception) is 6min 1gas. There are 15 high ground (8/2) bases, and 24 mid ground (6/1) bases.
|
Whoa buddy don't be so mad, I was only trying to give constructive critisism. First off - Yes I'm not a mapper, but I feel strongly for the idea of challenging mappers to think differently, and I would like to help in any way possible. Secondly - I tried to use humor in my response to you. If it's a bit hard to see and you feel offended I'm sorry.
No to explain myself. Two entrances to the base might be balanced, but in a wrong way. No effective wall-in means early rushes will be far too effective. This is of cource not as big a problem as there are more spawn to scout - but this means games might be coinflips instead of strategic wins, hense my concern. The map is also very small, something that others have commented on as well. I could go into detail on this, but you seem to be aware of the pros and cons of this already.
|
your Country52797 Posts
I guess I'll make my awesome team map then...
BTW, can I submit 2 maps?
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:26 lawol wrote:This seems like a pretty cool concept, and some of the maps are looking awesome lol ;o Anyway I'm giving the comp a go myself, here is the top down look so far: Some map analyser pics: http://i.imgur.com/Cww8x.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/w8A0U.pngI've already started texturing and decorating, but thats mainly because I'm still new to the editor and am just trying to figure out how to get a nice natural look to things. I had some difficulty with the symmetry, I think the main and natural might be classed as such - is it? :o Any other feedback is welcome! lol
I like this.
My only concern is that the top main has three easy bases while the bottom has two.
Now onto creating my map!
|
@ Zaphod Beeblebrox -- I took no offense at the humor you tried to use, nor at the fact that you tried to offer constructive criticism for my map. What irritates me is that you would tell a guy on his fourth post and second map that he is lacking a skill set when you know neither his intention nor train of thought. Further, I am not a fan of when people seem to be self contradictory as when you seem to be open minded about challenging mappers to explore new ideas and then you don't like the new ideas being offered.
I get that you do not like the map decisions I made. I disagree that matches are going to devolve into coin flips at close positions (you will be scouting early). I also disagree that the map is small, it is 160x160 playable -- this makes it *cramped* for 7 players, not small. Maybe this is what you mean, but I think the map starts to get way to big for mid/far positions if I make the map much bigger given the fact that the whole thing is one massive maze. If you look at the analyzer pics of this map, you will see how much a winding route can add to the ground distance. Having everything open up slightly (going to 250x250 like FenX mentioned would really only make the passageways slightly more open if I were to make every base and expansion "normal size") just to be more friendly to what people are used to I don't think is worth making the map less playable which I do think making the map too big would do. Maybe this map won't make it into any tournaments, but in the tests I have done so far, 1v1 and 7ffa are very fun.
You will need to sim city all of your buildings around the ramps. You will need to scout very early with two workers. You may need to add in a number of defensive structures. In other words, you will need to play differently to be successful on this map. I do not think that this fact takes away anything from the game especially as everyone is always looking for the next new way to play -- this map forces that. You might wind up not liking the way you need to play this map but that is not my problem, my problem is challenging the norm which I think my map does quite nicely without being imbalanced.
Don't worry, I will be publishing it soon and you can try it out to see what does/doesn't happen with the game play. (btw, evo chambers make great simcity buildings for zerg.)
|
Dude relax. I am merely sharing a concern I have about your map, not trying to attack it. The thing that worries me is that mains with large/secondary entrances have been tried before, and it never seems to work. If your map can work with a different metagame, then my worries are wrong ofc, but there is no denying that your map will need a lot of work to eliminate the imbalances this metagame brings. (on my first post I didn't realise that two entrances were a major part of the map design so I tried to advise against it)
Also for me being hypocritical - I try to point out things that may or may not work in the maps. In your case I saw mains with two entrances, and this immediately made the alarm bells ring so I felt I had to point this out strongly. Being open minded is not the same as blindly ignoring possible faults (and I do mean possible, your idea might work if the map is tuned to it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UpFIR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S1GRa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UJ4pl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5kTwc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KBNgX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PhODr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iISGg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/doKlX.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x8PC4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rWTcw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e66DG.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gSyDd.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9puYZ.png)
