|
UPDATE - 01/07/10 - Download
-Version 1.1b Released
Changelog -
- Relocated gold expo from high ground to low ground in more central location.
- Former location of gold narrowed and 'decorative' islands added instead.
- Relocated "3rd" expansion (next to gold) to high ground.
- Middle high ground access ramp moved and narrowed.
- Maintained natural choke size but slightly reduced high ground defence advantage from main.
- Numerous other tweaks and aesthetic changes.
Version: 1.1b
Players: 2 (1v1)
Tileset: Zhakul'Das
Size: 138x132/160x160 (playable/full)
Rush Time: 36~ seconds (real time, base to base with worker)
(Click images for High-Res versions)
Layout - Top Down View
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2KHgC.jpg)
Description -
The map is, as far as playable terrain goes, totally symmetrical. Players start cross-spawn, in the top right and bottom left corners (2 & 8). Each has a natural that is quite easily defended which opens out in to the centre of the map. A second expansion lies on the low ground sheltered by the main. In the other two corners of the map (10 & 4) one can find high yield mineral patches, which can be attacked from multiple fronts and thus are quite hard to defend. There is also a third expansion on the high ground behind the high yield, slightly closer to the main.
Destructible rocks are located on a small choke near the natural, to allow (delayed) access to the 3rd expansion (and surrounding high ground - which can be used by terran to siege your natural to an extent). There are also rocks at the "back door" of each main, to dissuade turtling and encourage tactical diversity.
The large central plateau is broken up by two structures housing watchtowers and an ominous tower in the centre.
Other Pictures - (Click image for High-Res)
Layout - Angled View
+ Show Spoiler +
Natural Choke
+ Show Spoiler +
Centre "Choke"
- There was a lot of initial confusion regarding the pathing in the centre of the map. This image highlights how open the centre actually is, with the majority of it being passable by ground units. The only areas in the centre not passable are highlighted in red.
+ Show Spoiler +
Watchtowers
+ Show Spoiler +
Watchtower Range
+ Show Spoiler +
SC2 Map Analyser -
- NOTE: There are a few discrepancies in these pictures (apparently one of the high yields is "more open" than the other - despite the map being totally symmetrical. As far as I can tell, these are due to errors with the application itself and not the map but I am choosing to include them anyway.
+ Show Spoiler +
Feedback -
- Specifically looking for feedback on the following (though all is welcome!)
- High Yield Location & Availability.
- Destructible Rocks.
- Overall map balance and potential abuse.
- Potentially reducing minerals at expansions.
- Potentially adding destructible rocks at high yield.
Download it here!
Thank you for your time and comments!
Poll: Potential for competitive play?No (5) 45% Yes (4) 36% Maybe (changes necessary) (2) 18% 11 total votes Your vote: Potential for competitive play? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): Maybe (changes necessary)
(Vote): No
Please, regardless of what you vote, a quick comment to explain your choice is much, much appreciated. Thank you.
OP:
+ Show Spoiler +Hello everyone!
This is actually my very first post here at TL, I've been lurking for a while now but as a relative newcomer to the game I've steered away from actively taking part in any discussions due to my inexperience as a player. However I'm doing my best to sponge up all of the incredibly useful information you guys and girls provide.
Like many of you I've been trying to get my fix of SC2 during the beta downtime via mapmaking. It's not the first time I've made maps or other custom content for games before, but it is the first time I've had to think to such an extent about every last detail of the map for the sake of balance.
I've done my very best to create a well balanced, tactically variable and sexy looking map, but since the wealth of knowledge this community shares is infinitely superior to my own, I would be most grateful for your thoughts and opinions. So without further ado, I present...
I noticed a lot of other maps popping up while I was making this that had the same tileset and in some cases similar layouts which did discourage me somewhat. However I hope the quality of the map both in terms of balance and appearance make up for it. I'm really looking forward to any and all criticism/input.
I also really recommend downloading the map and taking a look for yourself, and not judging entirely by the pictures alone - they don't do the map justice in my opinion =)
Thanks for your time!
|
The map is arranged nicely, but goddamn I hate that tileset !
|
Only the one reply? =/
I kind of agree though, I initially chose the tileset cause it was one of the few not used in the official blizzard maps but it seems to have been a bit over-used recently.
|
Why did you name the map dystopia?
|
I'll rant on the tileset too as I just did a bunch of work on a map with it as well. Where's my f-ing contrast! Everything ends up so green and washed out, there's no good contrasting tiles of a similar type to work with. Stuff like the Char tileset you can blend dirt, light dirt and cracked dirt to really make the area look nice. With this tileset it's all very drab looking  .
One thing you can do is change the lighting of the map to help liven it up graphically.
|
It looks nice and all but i can't play it atm so...
|
On June 28 2010 11:03 jodogohoo wrote:
Why did you name the map dystopia?
he took a word out of the dictionary. thats how most maps are named anyways
|
I'm having trouble (due to reso and/or tileset seeing where you can cross in the middle/how wide it is)
-feels like the choke/path from the nat is too long and narrow.
|
Russian Federation145 Posts
Why would you name the map "dystopia" and not set it in a cyberpunk city? Change of tileset please.
|
On June 28 2010 11:51 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I'm having trouble (due to reso and/or tileset seeing where you can cross in the middle/how wide it is)
-feels like the choke/path from the nat is too long and narrow.
You can click the images for high-res versions. The middle is quite wide and the nat choke is nowhere near as long as it looks, the 2nd picture in combination with the first should demonstrate this.
|
On June 28 2010 11:03 jodogohoo wrote:
Why did you name the map dystopia?
"Dystopia" means simply - "a bad place". The word doesn't have to carry connotations of cities and urban landscapes.
I'm kind of disappointed no-one has anything to say except bashing both the name and the tileset. Thanks guys =/
|
Personally I think it looks great. Better than most map suggestions here which people applaud for bizarre reasons. I like the size of the choke at the natural expo, which most people leave wide open (which is ridiculous). I have no problem with the tileset, even though it's not my favorite as it looks a bit dark. But it might very well be ok in game because the pictures mess up the colors (that happens alot with my own maps).
I would perhaps say though that the gold mineral expansion looks a bit easily defended. It could be more out in the open, like the third expo is. Other than that I like the expansion set up.
I really like the name of the map, it is what my own nickname is based on. 
|
On June 28 2010 22:11 Dystisis wrote:Personally I think it looks great. Better than most map suggestions here which people applaud for bizarre reasons. I like the size of the choke at the natural expo, which most people leave wide open (which is ridiculous). I have no problem with the tileset, even though it's not my favorite as it looks a bit dark. But it might very well be ok in game because the pictures mess up the colors (that happens alot with my own maps). I would perhaps say though that the gold mineral expansion looks a bit easily defended. It could be more out in the open, like the third expo is. Other than that I like the expansion set up. I really like the name of the map, it is what my own nickname is based on.
Thanks for the input. The tileset has actually grown on me again, it is quite dark but in-game I think it looks really nice and makes units/buildings stand out perfectly. I'd love it if people would play a game on the map (vs AI right now I guess) and see if the tileset actually causes them any issues in-game.
The natural choke is, at its' narrowest point, wide enough to block with 2 gateways (much like blistering sands). I'm glad you agree this is a good size.
As for the gold, is the distance from the main in combination with the back door entrance(s) not enough to offset its apparently easy defence? I was under the impression personally that if you really committed to defending the gold then you would leave your main wide open?
I might experiment with moving the gold down to the lowground, about where the ramp leading up to where the gold is currently.
Again, thanks =)
|
I just tried out the map against the Blizzard "Short Bus" AI. It looks much better in game than the screenshots.
After playing it, and getting a chance to roam around the map a bit with actual units, I really like the map. I didn't notice any obvious bugs. Everything seems exactly symmetrical as far as positioning goes. So the core design is solid.
As far as the technical details go:
I like the small ramp on the main, and the large flat area for main. The small ramp plus the long rush distance makes it easier than some maps to defend against an early rush. The big land area for the main makes it vulnerable to cliff jumpers like Stalkers and Reapers, giving them many places to jump up.
The Xel'Naga watchtowers probably have the best placement of any map I have seen. Their view distance just barely touches in the center of the map, giving a great view of the mostly open center area for those who control it. Additionally, they are in those tower structures, and not directly in the path of many attacks, making them easier to control unless players are actively going after them.
The natural is small, but relatively easily defended from the cliff, with an average size opening. Protoss and Terran can effectively guard the approach with Stalkers and Siege tanks, but they will have to move to defend the actual base if the approach is passed.
The high yield expo is very isolated, with 2 ramps making it more risky than the players second natural.
I think the map will play well for a variety of tactics and strategies. I'm excited to try it against some real opponents once Beta comes back online.
Until I play it a few times against real opponents it will be hard to get a real feel for the map, but from what I saw testing it out it looks like A+ stuff to me so far. Very different from the Blizz maps. I like something a little unique. Great work!
|
Russian Federation145 Posts
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dystopia
dys·to·pi·a
/dɪsˈtoʊpiə/ Show Spelled[dis-toh-pee-uh] Show IPA
–noun
a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.
dys-utopia. Yes, it does refer to a city. Yes, you need to change the name/tileset. That's a friendly protip.
|
Looks like tank heaven to me at the moment. The small-ish gap in the center with the ramps almost makes it seem like a single-file shooting gallery, making it foolish to run through there.
But then again, that's just what it looks like to me at the moment. I'll definitely dl it when I get back home and test it against a few computers.
Aesthetically, it looks good. I like the nice wide part of the third. As a Zerg player, it makes me happy.
Keep it going! I wonder what you can do in the future?
|
This looks like it would be good for almost any race.
Zerg should get Nydus Worms though just incase they cannot cross over to the other side of the map. Protoss might want to get a few proxy pylons.
Terran should get tanks and not let their enemy cross the pathway (duh).
|
I might sound like a total noob here, but what is a titleset?
Isn't that like what type of map it is? Like jungle, or twilight, etc?
|
On June 29 2010 03:43 TheDrill wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dystopiadys·to·pi·a /dɪsˈtoʊpiə/ Show Spelled[dis-toh-pee-uh] Show IPA –noun a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding. dys-utopia. Yes, it does refer to a city. Yes, you need to change the name/tileset. That's a friendly protip.
OK. I'm down with playing a little 'Let's Quote Definitions' if that's what you want. First of all, the definition you quoted is strictly relevant to societies. This is because the term "dystopian" is only typically used to refer to literature in which a grim, futuristic society is depicted. I'm not designing a society, I'm designing a map, or a landscape. So let's look at some less specific definitions of the word;
[From the same page you linked]
"An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror."
That definition is certainly applicable to my map. Let's try another...
[Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010]
"a hypothetical place, society, or situation in which conditions and the quality of life are dreadful."
Again, totally applicable. Nowhere in any of these definitions is the word "city" mentioned. The only hint in the definition you quoted comes from the word "overcrowding" - omit that and your argument falls over.
Just because the majority of dystopian societies in fiction are set in urban cityscapes does not make that a prerequisite.
Lastly, SC2 is a science-fiction themed game. Who's to say what the protoss (or even zerg) would consider a dystopia.
So, no, I don't think I'll change the name, and I don't think I'll change the tileset either. Thanks for the 'protip' though =)
On June 29 2010 02:44 Chizambers wrote:
I just tried out the map against the Blizzard "Short Bus" AI. It looks much better in game than the screenshots.
After playing it, and getting a chance to roam around the map a bit with actual units, I really like the map. I didn't notice any obvious bugs. Everything seems exactly symmetrical as far as positioning goes. So the core design is solid.
As far as the technical details go:
I like the small ramp on the main, and the large flat area for main. The small ramp plus the long rush distance makes it easier than some maps to defend against an early rush. The big land area for the main makes it vulnerable to cliff jumpers like Stalkers and Reapers, giving them many places to jump up.
The Xel'Naga watchtowers probably have the best placement of any map I have seen. Their view distance just barely touches in the center of the map, giving a great view of the mostly open center area for those who control it. Additionally, they are in those tower structures, and not directly in the path of many attacks, making them easier to control unless players are actively going after them.
The natural is small, but relatively easily defended from the cliff, with an average size opening. Protoss and Terran can effectively guard the approach with Stalkers and Siege tanks, but they will have to move to defend the actual base if the approach is passed.
The high yield expo is very isolated, with 2 ramps making it more risky than the players second natural.
I think the map will play well for a variety of tactics and strategies. I'm excited to try it against some real opponents once Beta comes back online.
Until I play it a few times against real opponents it will be hard to get a real feel for the map, but from what I saw testing it out it looks like A+ stuff to me so far. Very different from the Blizz maps. I like something a little unique. Great work!
Thank you for such an awesome and in-depth response! You practically summed up everything I wanted to achieve with this map. I'm in the process of making a couple of changes (mostly aesthetic, but one or two not) that I'd quite like to hear your thoughts on.
On June 29 2010 04:05 JHancho wrote:
Looks like tank heaven to me at the moment. The small-ish gap in the center with the ramps almost makes it seem like a single-file shooting gallery, making it foolish to run through there.
But then again, that's just what it looks like to me at the moment. I'll definitely dl it when I get back home and test it against a few computers.
Aesthetically, it looks good. I like the nice wide part of the third. As a Zerg player, it makes me happy.
Keep it going! I wonder what you can do in the future?
There seems to be a somewhat recurring issue with this map due to how I designed the middle in terms of how people perceive it, at least if I get what you're saying right. The centre of the map around the tower where there is water is totally passable by ground units. There is a small "pond" above and below the centre that seperates it from the small chokes with destructable rocks. I hope that makes sense. If not, I plan on creating an image that demonstrates what I'm talking about.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the very centre of the map is in fact quite unfriendly to siege tanks, with lots of open space - which as a zerg player I'm sure you'll think is excellent news.
On June 29 2010 07:46 Antares777 wrote:
This looks like it would be good for almost any race.
Zerg should get Nydus Worms though just incase they cannot cross over to the other side of the map. Protoss might want to get a few proxy pylons.
Terran should get tanks and not let their enemy cross the pathway (duh).
I might sound like a total noob here, but what is a titleset?
Isn't that like what type of map it is? Like jungle, or twilight, etc
Thanks for the positive comment, like you said I really tried to make a lot of different strategies and units viable on this map without any being too powerful.
Regarding the tilesets, the editor groups textures together that (in most cases) work nicely with each other. Because your map is limited to one tileset (I think?) and there are only 10 or so tilesets, each consisting of 10 or so textures, there's a little bit of a lack of variation and some definitely look better than others. The char one for example most people don't seem to like too much. I was skeptical of this one at first but it's actually grown on me more and more.
--
So, update coming soon with a few tweaks, hopefully in the next few hours. Will also post a few more pictures clarifying the centre of the map and the use/range of siege tanks.
Thanks everyone for the positive comments so far.
|
Hmm... linking 'dystopia' with 'city'...
Has anyone read "Fahrenheit 451" or "1984"?
...Really good books IMO...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/7ZyZD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/N1bx2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xNwW5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MCqbK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PvDIZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/gQFKt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2aEmt.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KDgxo.png)
