|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bYgwH.jpg)
Highest Authority v0.2
Players: 2
Category: Melee
Status: Beta, published to SEA/EU currently(if people really want to play on NA or others we could work something out)
EDIT: Now published on EU too thanks to Ongweldt!
Modes: 1v1 Melee, Custom
Size: 192x184 (Full), 168x158 (Playable)
Features:
- U-Shaped layout, like scrap station
- Easy-to-defend natural with backdoor rock
- Two high yield expansions, fairly exposed
- Two Xel'Naga towers
- Shortcut path that can be opened via destructible rocks
- Island expansion (visible from upper Xel'Naga tower)
Comments:
My first proper map. I wanted to make a balanced map that looked good. I always liked the interesting layout of Scrap Station, so this is based on a similar idea. I also always liked the visual style of Metalopolis, so that's the inspiration for the visual theme.
The close bases should encourage players to consider air, but hopefully not too much that all games end up like that. At the least, it should force players to be aware of the threat. The expansion direction is away from the natural path to the enemy base, so this makes the player consider their choices when they move their army to either capture/destroy an expansion, as you are potentially leaving your main exposed.
One potential concern with the design is the travel distance being slightly too close by ground. If this is the case I've already experimented with expanding the cliff area below the short cut into the central area to create a longer path, so that is a potential solution.
Other than that it should hopefully be a pretty fun map - the natural expansion allows for fast expanding, the lower expansions allow for early hidden expansions, as well as the island. These should allow for a variety of game-plans to be viable.
Images are below, click for high res versions.
SC2Mapster link: Highest Authority
Any comments/criticisms are welcome 
Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Game view:
+ Show Spoiler +
Main/Natural:
+ Show Spoiler +
Center:
+ Show Spoiler +
High Yield:
+ Show Spoiler +
Lower area:
+ Show Spoiler +
Analysis: Openness:
+ Show Spoiler +
Analysis: Distances:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
This one does really look good. I envy mappers that are good at city/space texturing ^^
|
It looks pretty good, though I would switch the placement of gas/mineral line to make it harder to expand there for zerg or anyone without map control. I love the tower between the mains, makes you want to drop a unit there just in case
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50116 Posts
Excellent.I suggest a ramp at the high ground of the natural opposite to the main.
|
Very interesting map, looking forward to see this in action.
|
On September 05 2010 20:49 dezi wrote:
This one does really look good. I envy mappers that are good at city/space texturing ^^
I feel exactly the same! Especially since the road tool is kinda messed up and I'm never able to make them look cool.
I have free map slots for EU btw. If you want to make it playable to us just message me (:
|
I like what I see! Very detailed, my kind of liking.
|
This map looks very fun in all stages of the game. I really like the visual appeal of the center X, which complements its function.
I would say the lower tower (in the vents) is not needed, as you can watch the center with a scout anyway. It really only lets you see the raised tower platform between the rocks, and I don't see why someone who wins that platform shouldn't take the advantage for doing so. (However, I like the LOS pocket.) Also, that way, the single tower watching the air route is a major prize, but only if air is being used. Either way I love that upper platform with tower.
Can we have this on the other servers asap??!
|
Considering this is your first map, this is amazing. Though it feels far too big for a 2 player map. Consider shrinking it a bit.
|
I'm liking this! Looks strategically well balanced and just the right size for a 1v1.
I agree though the top watchtower seems a little superfluous, but not that bad in the end and can be useful to scout air attacks/island expansion.
Also the high yield seems a little too easy to defend as a 3rd. Massing your army at the road kink above it is a very strong position to cover all 3. I would consider removing the ramp to the HY that faces the player's base (or rotating the two ramps 90 degrees to face across from each other).
|
|
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Oh noes, it has a starting location. It's terran favored ... gosh.
|
Why do people say make maps smaller. Small maps encourage one basing and all-in plays. Large maps encourage macro games where you can actually afford multiple fights. This map looks beautiful. It feels like, however, that Reapers would be a bit too imbalanced as well as tanks cliffing the natural. As for the gold, maybe pushing it farther from the main, and pulling your third expansion back a bit towards the player. It might be hard to do since it`s so beautiful and symmetrical already. Or maybe the gold can be the middle of the lower section. It feels very much like a third rather than being taken during an advantage.
|
On September 06 2010 06:26 vica wrote:
Or maybe the gold can be the middle of the lower section. It feels very much like a third rather than being taken during an advantage.
I think the fact that it's on a low ground and has to be defended from two entrances is enough. It wouldn't be easy to hold, even for an entrenched terran.
|
On September 06 2010 06:26 vica wrote:
Why do people say make maps smaller. Small maps encourage one basing and all-in plays. Large maps encourage macro games where you can actually afford multiple fights. This map looks beautiful. It feels like, however, that Reapers would be a bit too imbalanced as well as tanks cliffing the natural. As for the gold, maybe pushing it farther from the main, and pulling your third expansion back a bit towards the player. It might be hard to do since it`s so beautiful and symmetrical already. Or maybe the gold can be the middle of the lower section. It feels very much like a third rather than being taken during an advantage.
"168x158 (Playable)"
is that small? :S looks like a very good map to FE>mutaling on tbh
|
Wow thanks for all the feedback guys I think most are pretty valid points
On September 05 2010 21:22 Zaphid wrote:It looks pretty good, though I would switch the placement of gas/mineral line to make it harder to expand there for zerg or anyone without map control. I love the tower between the mains, makes you want to drop a unit there just in case
For the high yield? That might be a good way to make the high yield a bit less safe. Colossi/Tanks would be pretty powerful on the high ground above the mineral line.
On September 05 2010 21:35 BLinD-RawR wrote:
Excellent.I suggest a ramp at the high ground of the natural opposite to the main.
Not sure about that, seems like it would just be heaven for tanks :/ Although as it stands dropships could put things up there, but at least the cost is that the unit can't get down easily.
On September 06 2010 00:40 EatThePath wrote:
This map looks very fun in all stages of the game. I really like the visual appeal of the center X, which complements its function.
I would say the lower tower (in the vents) is not needed, as you can watch the center with a scout anyway. It really only lets you see the raised tower platform between the rocks, and I don't see why someone who wins that platform shouldn't take the advantage for doing so. (However, I like the LOS pocket.) Also, that way, the single tower watching the air route is a major prize, but only if air is being used. Either way I love that upper platform with tower.
Can we have this on the other servers asap??!
Yeah I'm not sure about the center watchtower. The vents might seem a bit odd without something in the middle of them. I agree that the middle tower removes some of the advantage for controlling the upper platform, that's a good point. Maybe a watchtower somewhere on the lower-middle high ground might be better.
As for getting this on the other server, I have just one or two questions - If someone offers to publish it for me, can I send them my map locked? or can they potentially change the name/info on it and then publish it themselves? Not really too concerned but just curious
On September 06 2010 01:45 neobowman wrote:
Considering this is your first map, this is amazing. Though it feels far too big for a 2 player map. Consider shrinking it a bit.
I think the size is ok, if anything it might need something to encourage players to use the bottom area a bit more though.
On September 06 2010 01:55 rbnhood wrote:
Also the high yield seems a little too easy to defend as a 3rd. Massing your army at the road kink above it is a very strong position to cover all 3. I would consider removing the ramp to the HY that faces the player's base (or rotating the two ramps 90 degrees to face across from each other).
Fair point, siege tanks in that choke would be pretty powerful. Adjusting the ramps could work, might have a look at how well that works, might start with the swapping of gas/mineral lines first if necessary though.
On September 06 2010 06:26 vica wrote:
Why do people say make maps smaller. Small maps encourage one basing and all-in plays. Large maps encourage macro games where you can actually afford multiple fights. This map looks beautiful. It feels like, however, that Reapers would be a bit too imbalanced as well as tanks cliffing the natural. As for the gold, maybe pushing it farther from the main, and pulling your third expansion back a bit towards the player. It might be hard to do since it`s so beautiful and symmetrical already. Or maybe the gold can be the middle of the lower section. It feels very much like a third rather than being taken during an advantage.
Yeah, I agree the third is possibly a bit too far away to be appealing over the high yield. I think it would be possible to shift that area slightly closer to the natural while keeping the symmetry .
Again thanks for all the comments! I will update the OP once I make any more changes to the map.
|
This map looks neat, it kind of reminds me of a slightly more open 2-player Metalopolis.
Is there a reason why you don't have any brush on the map? Or is there brush that I just don't see.
I agree with the post above that the third looks much less appealing than the high yield, as well.
|
Beautiful map. The texturing and doodad work is impeccable.
Edit: I guess my only comment about flow is that there's only one real route through the center to your enemy. This generally means that the majority of the gameplay will be at the natural of one player or the other, with very little maneuvering about the middle. Of course, this is an issue with Scrap station as well until one player or the other takes their third, so I don't think it's a huge deal. In most of my experimentation with map design I've found that maps with multiple routes to the enemy (think Heartbreak Ridge in BW) can produce much more exciting army movement and give players more to worry about (and also give spectators more to watch, for a professional map), compared to maps with a single path through the middle.
Edit #2: Also, I'm not sure how often the shortcut path on this map will be used. Unlike Scrap Station, the shortcut doesn't seem to actually cut down on the ground distance very significantly.
|
On September 06 2010 11:05 SuperbeastAU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 06:26 vica wrote:
Why do people say make maps smaller. Small maps encourage one basing and all-in plays. Large maps encourage macro games where you can actually afford multiple fights. This map looks beautiful. It feels like, however, that Reapers would be a bit too imbalanced as well as tanks cliffing the natural. As for the gold, maybe pushing it farther from the main, and pulling your third expansion back a bit towards the player. It might be hard to do since it`s so beautiful and symmetrical already. Or maybe the gold can be the middle of the lower section. It feels very much like a third rather than being taken during an advantage. Yeah, I agree the third is possibly a bit too far away to be appealing over the high yield. I think it would be possible to shift that area slightly closer to the natural while keeping the symmetry .
I am not convinced that the gold is too easy to take. And if its symmetrical, isn't that part of the map features? However, it'd be nice if there was tension between the gold and corner expos as a choice for 3rd. What if the center-facing ramp at the corner was narrower for easy walloff and forcefield? (I hesitate to say add rocks.)
Or perhaps something like this?
+ Show Spoiler +
Have a bottom walkway with a ramp coming up at either pink, or orange with a second narrow ramp. (Maybe an expo below center bottom grass platform, or two like you had is cool too.) This would get some action going on the far side of the map, and it would make the corner harder to surmount, and therefore more attractive to grab prior to gold.
Anyway just some ideas, don't take me too seriously. I really like the map so it was worth drawing up some examples in paint!
|
If you want it published, I got spots left. All I will do is add me to author as publisher, then lock it afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/lQYnP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3tnTG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YI7Yt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/EXkkc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3KUyt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vir5c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/D2qdL.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/g26DT.png)
![[image loading]](http://a.imageshack.us/img833/4817/highauthorityedit.jpg)
