[M] (2) Perdition

Post a Reply

1 2 Next All

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 08 2010 06:15 GMT

Perdition

Images:
Overview: + Show Spoiler +

Angled View: + Show Spoiler +

Analyzer Image: + Show Spoiler +

Old Images:
+ Show Spoiler +

Overview: + Show Spoiler +

Angled View: + Show Spoiler +

Analyzer Image: + Show Spoiler +

Notes:
This is my first reflection symmetric map. It's on the Char tile set. Char is full of rocks, pulsating gooey things and guts apparently. Welcome to Perdition. I hate it. I hope you do too.

P.S. Droopy.

My Map Thread

TheAmazombie

United States3714 Posts

November 08 2010 06:28 GMT

I dig it just from the look. I will have to check it out more though. I love these 2-player maps like Scrap Station style. They lead to some interesting play.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 08 2010 06:34 GMT

Let's talk through this. Can you expand on your negative feelings? How do you feel when you look at your map?

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 08 2010 06:50 GMT

On November 08 2010 15:34 EatThePath wrote:
Let's talk through this. Can you expand on your negative feelings? How do you feel when you look at your map?

I figured no one actually read that. Nice to know some people do. I don't actually hate it, but I do much prefer rotationally symmetric maps when it comes to two players.

Amadi

Finland139 Posts

November 08 2010 07:18 GMT

I don't really hate this, but I can't say I'd love this, either. I don't like the air distance, to begin with, and the mains are boring. The gold in middle is way too risky to be taken under almost any circumstances, and the way expansions are set up is a bit boring. It's not bad in any way, it's just very standard, basic, simple, and forgettable.

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 08 2010 08:04 GMT

On November 08 2010 16:18 Amadi wrote:
I don't really hate this, but I can't say I'd love this, either. I don't like the air distance, to begin with, and the mains are boring. The gold in middle is way too risky to be taken under almost any circumstances, and the way expansions are set up is a bit boring. It's not bad in any way, it's just very standard, basic, simple, and forgettable.

I can't disagree with you. But, I will say that the air distances are comparable to close air on Metalopolis. And I'm not really sure what an exciting main would look like. You'll have to explain that to me.

Also, Any expansion anywhere close to the middle of the map will be difficult to take. Do you think it would make the map better if I removed the gold in the middle? I don't think it would change much, so why not leave it in and make it a slap in the face to your opponent when you're winning and you do take it.

I think the expansion pattern on this style of map has a fine line between safe and impossible. I leaned toward safe. But if a game progresses as far as taking a 4th expansion, there will be definite conflict.

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

November 08 2010 09:06 GMT

1 questions, did you turn around the whole map? I thought during your first version of this the bases were at 9 and 12 instead of 3 and 6? ^^ Anyway it still looks somewhat like a BETTER remake of scrap station. What's the rush distance?

NastyMarine

United States1252 Posts

November 08 2010 09:12 GMT

I approve of this map.

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 08 2010 09:15 GMT

On November 08 2010 18:06 dezi wrote:
1 questions, did you turn around the whole map? I thought during your first version of this the bases were at 9 and 12 instead of 3 and 6? ^^ Anyway it still looks somewhat like a BETTER remake of scrap station. What's the rush distance?

Yes, I did flip it around. I also changed the far away gold... It's probably not the best WIP I had in my thread, but I have trouble doing finishing work on a map unless I have a clear vision of what I want the map to look like. I found the Char tile set easy to work with so I decided to finish it despite its not-so-greatness. Ground rush distances according to the map analyzer are 167.2 main-to-main, and 149.8 nat-to-nat.

Perdition

American Samoa77 Posts

November 08 2010 10:57 GMT

#10

In short, I approve.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

November 08 2010 11:06 GMT

#11

compared to ground distance it looks like flying is really super short distance.

I am interested to know how the rampy "inner circle" plays out considering it being highgroud to control outer circle.

on the symmetrical 1on1 map problem:
when you feel bad about the close distance of bases in 2player symmetrical maps, why did you not switch main and third? then the air close distance issue is kind of solved.
another possibility is to fit another expansion between the two that is long distance or hard to controll unless you have air advantage allow me to shamlessly link to my last map

I think a bigger problem (in 2player symmetrical maps) is to design a centre. it must provide enough space, you need to have access from everywhere, but it has to be controllable at the same time.
therefore I'd love to play on your map and see how the centre(circle thing) with ramps plays!

great stuff for an interesting discussion, guys!

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 08 2010 20:01 GMT

#12

I don't really have any problems with the air distance. I knew it was short when I made it and did what I could to make it reasonable. If it proves to be a problem, I can add air pathing blockers. I have attempted doing a reflection symmetrical map where the mains are far away in the corners. As you noted, with that layout, I had difficulty designing a center that was interesting while leaving room for viable expansions and while not having close rush distances. If I'm going to put the mains in the opposite corners, I might as well make a rotationally symmetric map.

For example, take your suggestion to switch the main and third. This could work, but the changes would be pretty drastic. I would have to remove the high ground ramp path because it would be too close to the main. I would then make it so the two (old) mains connected in order to make the thirds attackable without having to travel through the natural. This would create conflict around the thirds but destroy any idea of an interesting center by splitting the attack paths. I've come to believe that the center space is what makes a map interesting. That space and how it is controlled is key.

Though, my biggest problem with reflection symmetry is that the closer an expansion gets the line of symmetry, the more difficult it becomes to take. Look at Scrap Station and it's thirds. The thirds are too close making them quite difficult to take and because of this, I rarely see plays on the map above two bases. Look at Tendency (Samro's map linked in his post), the fourths are close and if you read the thread many are concerned that a single player might take both of them. It's difficult creating a viable and interesting expansion pattern when you have to so closely and carefully avoid the center without making the map too huge.

G_Wen

Canada525 Posts

November 08 2010 20:15 GMT

#13

Wow, another great map. It feels like scrap station done right. Going to play a few games on it whenever I get my computer fixed so I can give more feedback. Keep up the good work.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 08 2010 20:56 GMT

#14

Ha, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, though I was riffing on that grain of truth...

The discussion has gone over everything I saw in this map. Yeah, it's more "reasonable" than Scrap Station, but it comes off so bland and vaguely problematic. I really agree with you that a main tenet of good mapmaking is having a good center, and that this is harder on a mirrored 2 player. You achieved good results here.

It really helps to have a theme in mind to play up in your layout, otherwise everything turns out ho-hum unless you get lucky. "What is the purpose of making this map that other maps have not yet achieved?"

In this case, the map is so plain at first glance, but your careful design considerations bear out some interesting mid/late-game possibilities. In fact I think the cosmetics could be leveraged to make things "pop" more, helping to define spaces, which gives the player direction in how to use the map advantageously. This is why char can't have nice things.

I know you've seen it before because you posted in the thread, but I think this map is a great example of the possibilities of mirror 2 player that are still available to experiment with: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=150414

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 08 2010 22:17 GMT

#15

How would you change the cosmetics in order to better define the spaces? When I texture maps, I usually try to make sure each area is distinct from the area next to it. For Example, the main is much darker than the natural, and the third is given more of a red rock texture. So each expansion is separated from each other with difference in textures. Then the main attack path is highlighted with a light dirt texture. Are there other areas which need definition?

I see 5-6 general areas of conflict throughout play: The 2 areas outside of the naturals in the early game and once the rocks have been broken down between the bases, the 2 high ground ramp areas on the central attack path in the mid game, and the area between the fourths in the late game. Am I wrong about these areas? Should these areas be more clearly defined?

Highest Authority does provide one way to assuage the difficulties. Namely, it is much, much larger than Perdition. Highest Authority has a playable area of 168x158 whereas Perdition is 132x132. If I do make another reflection symmetric map I will probably make it slightly bigger, but probably not as big as Highest Authority. Though you will notice that most of the bases are far from the line of symmetry and this does create some very long attack distances. Think about attacking the thirds; they are so far away.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

November 08 2010 22:49 GMT

#16

You describe the layout the way I see it. I was more commenting than critiquing. I agree with the "map of europe" approach where adjacent areas are different textures. With Char though, at least for me, the distinction is minor. It's sort of a feeling I get, I guess? Think about it like this. If you were sent to Perdition to do a mission at a specific location but your spaceship won't land precisely there, how would your orders read? "Go to the dark rocks next to the gray-brown rocks, next to the lava." Silly example but that's the only way I can explain it. Imagine the same map redone in Belshir, for instance. There'd be a rocky plateau [main], a grassy U-ridge with a ravine in the middle [gold] and two secluded beaches [third]. The tree lined avenue [fourths] has a gap in the vegetation where you can go behind the pond [corner gold]. (This is just extemporized.) It seems like Char has to work a lot harder to evoke a sense of distinct settings. Personally I find this helps a lot while you're playing.

Working on Char I would probably turn to doodads to fill it out in the style I describe. Just making it up: the thirds would be boneyards with carcasses strewn about. The high ground pods would be rocky pinnacles with spires around the edge. The avenue between fourths would have active lava bubble pits, or some kind of alien lava foliage.

This might be a personal preference thing, or does it seem valid?

Edit: As an addendum, I think you could have a less distinctive map appearance as well, but I find this suits an intentional "dreary wasteland" aesthetic. The layout here is much more "active" though. A wind-blown desert with spaces defined by rock walls can be monotone. There are a lot of curves and ups and downs here that, to me, want to be their own little places.

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

November 09 2010 02:57 GMT

#17

There's definitely a lot of detail work that may be difficult to see in the images. I haven't really thought about making it so each area used different doodads. I think if the areas were too different from each other, it might look weird. It is all supposed to be the same place after all.

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

December 14 2010 08:37 GMT

#18

--- Nuked ---

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

December 16 2010 14:47 GMT

#19

Updated the OP with a new version.

Changes:
- Moved the ramp to the third.
- Increased the size of the natural choke.
- Decreased the size of the ramps to the center gold.
- Added a third gas to the center gold base.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

December 16 2010 23:37 GMT

#20

How exactly can you use the symmetry tool like that? I have trouble with that feature, it's like guess and check.

1 2 Next All

Please or register to reply.

[M] (2) Perdition

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming