|
United States2119 Posts
BEL'SHIR WALKWAY 4.0 (UPDATED 1/23/2011)
90 degree view: + Show Spoiler +
*If map image doesn't resize, visit: http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/bwv422.jpg
50 degree view: http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/Bwv42.jpg
Map details:
-This map has high potential for macro, but does encourage turtling in various places, but favors Zerg expanding slightly over terran and protoss, however it still allows T and P to gain key points and advantages.
-Each main base has a second natural in the back blocked off by two sets of destructible rocks at each choke, allowing for double-entry and time to reinforce a choke point if playing as the defendant. This gives a player a choice to expand while knowing the risks involved.
-Rush Distance is approx 40 seconds game time from choke point to choke point (main to main).
-Each player has a Xel'Naga Watch Tower to watch his or her own gold expansion and the center of the battlefield, so both are at equal advantages of controlling the game. This still puts the gold expansion at high risk of being overrun from any side.
-The natural at each base has a back-way blocked by LOS, which allows for sneak attacks and offers a safER route for workers to reach the high ground expansion in the corners. This change was made to prevent heavy T and P turtle games.
1v1 map, 128x128
If you're interested you may add me on starcraft: IronMan #714
This replay is up to date, showing a epic TvP match between two masters: http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/replays.php?game=33&show=details&id=184380
Download here (NA only right now): http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/ashir-dulan/files/5-bel-shir-walkway-final/
|
Didn't I just see this thread?
|
United States2119 Posts
Remade it to fit the requirement for the topic name.
|
Ah ok. For future reference, you can just ask a mod to change the title, and edit the original post.
The map looks pretty good, no big problems in layout. People are going to complain that walling off the natural is hard, but thats not really an issue.
|
Looks really appealing, great work!
|
The general architecture reminds me a lot of xel-naga caverns, the difference being that your main and natural are a lot more closed off and the third expansion is really easy to take with the middle being a bit more wide open. I have somewhat mixed opinions on the third, the rocks seem like a gimmick to prevent it from being taken too easily but it should be easily takeable just the same.
At first glance it seems like a pretty strong terran map with the terran being able to really easily take their first 3 bases and siege tank contain the other player back on two or three bases. The back of the main is just begging for drops too. We'll have to see though, first impressions are often wrong.
|
|
|
i like the architecture, but
1. i don't know about rocks blocking off the third, perhaps leave it open like it is but add some terrain and move it a bit further away from the natural
2. the gold should be a bit further away from the main and third. expanding the water patch between the main, gold, and nat+3rd towards the center and/or moving the third a bit to the west/south, respectively east, north with some added terrain to add the distance would be good. this is because expansions seem way too easy to defend with mech by terran, and the gold seems close to unbreakable with a pf once terran gets there, due to close distances for reinforcements
3. too much unattackable air space, toss won't be able to make collossus on this ever, plus drops will be too easy to pull off, with the exception of nydus play, which you won't be able to put anywhere to be worth it as it is
4. don't like islands on maps. these are going to be impossible to break and are a bit too advantageous to take early because of all the open space. like with drops, this favors terran hard, toss neutral, zerg weakness. at least make them larger, wider
that;s what springs to mind at first glance, once you work out expansion location, open air space, and add doodads, it might look completely different, but till then hope this input helps. gl
|
Islands should have seven mineral patches to punish players for taking easy expansions.
|
144 by 144 sounds really big, when is it test ready?
|
United States2119 Posts
I am working on the layout first before I even consider testing it. It's not worth making the map complete only to find it has a lot to be desired. I will constantly update this thread when more updates are added.
I could put more mineral patches where the islands are, but then the map would be way, way too big or 2 players. That's why it's difficult to figure out what else I could possibly do. I feel this is a general good size when considering a "large 1v1 map" but I don't want to over-do it.
I could just take the islands out however and add pathing to the water.
Or, my 3rd option is to take the islands and transform them into new mains for this to become a 2v2 (or 1v1) map, thus giving me reason to add more mineral patches as well. The only problem with this option is that team members would have a tough time giving aid to their partners.
|
United States10148 Posts
On January 13 2011 04:53 IronManSC wrote:
Each base has a very close natural
Don't they all. xD
The map looks nice and you have a quick 3rd to take. How all you need is nice texturing and doodads.
|
general guidelines: 1v1, 128x128 max. 1v1v1v1, 144x144 max
1v1v1v1 is 1v1 for 4 spawns, at least to me?
|
Seams like a good map :D would like to see it on Bnet at some point!!! 
|
This map is way too big for a 2-player map. That's why you have a lot of unused terrain. I think if you tighten the map up a bit more to 108x108, you'll be able to get all your stuff closer together, have less unused terrain and will have a better map eventually.
From that point, your texturing needs more work... alot more.
|
I think this map could be compressed quite a bit.
- move fourth a bit more to outside and gold a bit towards centre to compress map
- kill islands
- make third a little more difficult, but get rid of DRs
- outside area of two smalls ponts could be a bit more smaller and could use some LoSBs
i like it overall (XN Caverns?). maybe the next MotM will be: who makes the most interesting XNCaverns alternative?
|
IronManSC,
still no eye candy :tear:
Samro225am,
xelnaga is really a straightforward chess board = cool
|
On January 13 2011 23:10 baskerville wrote:
IronManSC,
still no eye candy :tear:
Samro225am,
xelnaga is really a straightforward chess board = cool
sure it's cool. my comment was meant like: this remembers me of xelnaga > motm could ask to have only Xelnaga like maps in one month and see who comes up with something that is similar yet different (a little bit ironic, but still, could be fun...)
btw: it's okay to concentrate on the layout. why put in eye candy when you are not confident to have a nice layout set up?
|
United States2119 Posts
On January 13 2011 23:42 Samro225am wrote:
btw: it's okay to concentrate on the layout. why put in eye candy when you are not confident to have a nice layout set up?
Nailed it.
People need to read the topic about doodads, textures, and eye candy.... I said "no beauty effects" until things were good with the layout.
sigh
By the way, compressing this map and making it smaller would ruin the entire thing. I would have to re-do it all, and that'll take so long 
|
On January 14 2011 03:08 IronManSC wrote:By the way, compressing this map and making it smaller would ruin the entire thing. I would have to re-do it all, and that'll take so long
take your time to compress it. changing it migh ruin your initial layout, but not your idea. you want to have a good layout? then take your time to adjust things. not taking the time needed means your map is pretty much ruined from the start 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/bwv422.jpg)
