|
Map: Lunar Knot v0.6 (WIP)
[Larger Pic]
Creation Details: Well. Actually, I'm new to Starcraft II (and the competetive RTS genre in general), and have always been fascinated by map design. So, I chose to grab the bull by the horns and learn through experience. The original map concept was "I want a map with an overdesigned center!" - and it has evolved on its own since.
If it's a little arrogant of me to present a map with as little experience as I have, then I'm sorry. However, I'd really like to support the mapping community and it seems a great way to do so by experiencing it first hand. \o/
- Players: 2 - 1v1, 8 o'clock and 1 o'clock
- Size: 180x140
- Expansions: 14. 9 and 3 o'clock have a double size rich gas geyser, and central expos have 6 rich mineral fields. All other expansions have 8 mineral patches and 2 geysers.
- Rush Distance: 197.7/191.1/183.5 Land/Cliff/Air
- Worker Rush Time: Main ramp to main ramp: 58s, Nat ramp to nat ramp: 46s
- XWTs: 4, at the bottom left, far left, top right, and far right of the central platform. See the analysis image for exact locations.
- Destructible Rocks: None.
- LoSBs: Surround the 2 purple segments in the middle, and cut across the side routes to the far north and south of them. See the middle detail image.
- Servers: EU
Concept: Large macro map with vulnerable expansions after the natural. The twist in the centre provides many alternate routes and causes intel and map control to be a vital resource. The very middle region (take a vertical slice of the map) has several routes that meander around each other and are littered with line-of-sight blockers
+ Show Spoiler [Angled Views] +
+ Show Spoiler [Middle Detail] +
Map Analyser:
Changelog:
- 18/04/2011 - v0.5 - Initial map frame published!
- 19/04/2011 - v0.6 - Ramps and side routes made more spacious for attacks, expansions added at 10 and 4 o'clock. Destructible rocks removed.
Concerns:
- The map is huge. I could probably use the space far more efficiently.
- Air might be unnecessarily dominant. This also needs testing.
- Watchtowers might make it too easy to keep an eye on defense. Might be better to remove them to force people to leave stray units around.
Request:
Basically, due to my lack of experience/skill with the game, and lack of contacts, I've not really been able to test this map. So as well as for general map design feedback, I'm looking for testers, people who can say "yeah, those towers really do see too much", or "actually, harassment from air doesn't dominate games any more than it normally does".
Graphical problems and aesthetics are really not the priority until I reach a stable map design.
It has been uploaded onto the EU servers.
Download:
- v0.5 [url blocked]
- v0.6 [url blocked]
|
My first impressions on this one:
- The topleft and bottomright seem pretty pointless. Theres nothing there... No additional attackpaths, no expansions...
- The 3rd is very weirdly positioned. Attackers can range kill the workers, while the defenders have to walk round to kill said attackers.
- Its all very narrow, forcefields and ranged armys will reign surpreme on this.
That said, the looks are pretty good sir, deffo right path with that 
|
On April 18 2011 17:48 ihasaKAROT wrote:
- The topleft and bottomright seem pretty pointless. Theres nothing there... No additional attackpaths, no expansions...
1) Totally agree with this. Maybe you could put some sort of expo there?
2) In terms of the third base, on either side there are those "blocker" things. Perhaps on the 9:00 you would want to remove north blocker and on the 3:00 remove the south one? This would serve the purpose of opening up one of the entrances into the 3rd, and make it easier to attack into the third while forcing the defender to split his army (or move it away from his ramp into the natural).
The way the 3rd looks right now, the entrances into it are all really small chokes and it seem extremely easy to turtle up in there while offering no viable attack route. You should probably also put gases there? Not sure about your motives behind the gasless 3rd.
I see that the entrance into the 3rd from the topleft and bottomright are wide but to get to those areas would require an attacker to move their army through the narrow side paths on the 12:00 and 6:00 positions as well as leaving a wide opening for a counter attack through the middle which would probably discourage players from doing so.
3) Love your idea of basing a map around an 'overdesigned center' and how you provide the alternate attack routes along the top and bottom of the map. But first of all, the way you have all the walls in the center make if difficult for players to even move their armies into the main area. Also, the side attack routes are really narrow and seem awkward to maneuver your army around.. and again, your walls? around the golds and 3:00/9:00 xelnagas really choke up the center. As a player I would be thinking "if im gonna have to move my army through a narrow path anyways, why not just go through the center?" So basically it will make the side routes unused due to the center having the same advantages and disadvantages of the side routes.. except being a shorter and more direct path.
I like the 4 large U-shaped chasms/holes that separate the center from the side paths, but I feel that you should remove all the walls and the gold expos from the middle (and move them to the 2 empty corners maybe?). This would make a wide open center and with 2 narrower alternate attack paths along the edge.
This would throw in a more clear distinction in terms of whether one would want their army in the middle or attacking around the sides.
It would force players to think "should i move thru the center where i could get flanked/surrounded easier" or should I move thru the side paths where forcefields/tanks/colossus could do a lot effective dmg?" At the same time, moving through the side opens up the middle for a massive counter attack so it would encourage ppl to be more tactical in terms of army movement.
4) If you move the golds to where you currently have the 12 and 6 xelnagas, if a player were to take a base in this location, this would encourage them to move their armies up closer into the mid where most of the main action would happen (which is what i would imagine that you would want to achieve with this map). At the same time, this opens up a vulnerability along the side attack routes which would serve to create an interesting backdoor/counter avenue of attack.
ANyways.. thanks for reading such a long post hahaha... I really really like the idea you created here and it seems like it has sooo much potential to be an amazing map :D Your map looks awesome for someone who claims to have no/little experience! The texturing and details are beautiful
Something like this?
[Larger Pic]
|
looks really nice that map.
i just talk about the envroivement (lol my english)
the atmosphere is really really nice.
|
Alrighty, update tiem. SC2 editor's ramps are so much less intuitive than WC3's >.<
0.6 Updates:
- Map has been made far wider in the middle, around 3/9 o'clock and around the 10/4 o'clock areas.
- Expansions added at 10 and 4 o'clock.
- There's a little space behind the mineral lines of the expansions horizontally adjacent to mains. I will probably further widen this area.
- Took away the destructible rocks in the centre.
@ihasaKAROT
- Originally there were. It seemed rather out of the way in the original version, but I think I've integrated them more successfully this time.
- Yeah, I'm not happy with those walls. Removed them.
- The middle was designed to promote a lot of flanking and less of this Death Ball rubbish. Hopefully 0.6 should perform that better.
@joshie
1) Done.
2) The workers are going to exposed, which should make it hard enough to defend. I like your idea though, but it makes it a little harder to find space. I will have to experiment with moving the expansion back a bit, and see how that affects the dynamic. However, I find that the map makes a turtling slow push bad by the sheer size and variety in routes. A turtler will find the other play getting far more resources, and will probably be horribly out maneouvered, if I am correct (this needs testing, however!). Finally, there is a rich gas there, it's covered by text.
3) The center is now a lot more open and getting a flank or concave round the defender should be much easier. I don't think the height/walls need to me removed, but if testing proves otherwise, I'll happily do so.
4) Absolutely agreed. and that's exactly the choice I'm trying to make
And to that footnote, thanks! I insist on plugging away at refining this map for exactly that potential.
@ AemJaY
- Thanks! I'm aiming for an abandoned mining base on an asteroid/moon setting.
--
One last note, there's a tiny bit of pathing at the top. I've noticed it, and it's been fixed for the uploaded map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/dQlke.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/hRSNJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/pTlTT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OqyiG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DhyvA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/c8CUM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/6505/mapfg.jpg)
