|
Tektroid v.0.1
New map. Aesthetics and detailing are WIP, layout is fairly final. Post is WIP -- need url to publish map to B.net (NA) via the Arcade.
Brief note: main and nat are 8m2g, all other bases are 6m1hyg@3750, so total resources are as if there were 17 bases.
Map name comes from the prominent land masses looking (to me) like Metroids and Tektites (LOZ).
Map Pics:
+ Show Spoiler +
Map Specifications:
- Size -- 148x148 playable (168x176 full)
|
Why is everything 6 mins 1 high yield? What is the reasoning here? I seems all you are doing is throwing people off who are used to a normal setup.
|
@ Insomni7 -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242
While the experiment was not the complete success that it was hoped to be by the OP and many of those following the movement, I liked what happened to the gameplay due to the variant. As such, I may continue expeimenting with FRB from time to time -- this is one of those times. This hybrid map allows you to start off as normal on your first two bases but then further expansions are going to be more mineral consumptive (i.e., more base cost per minerals available to be harvested -- unless you expand like a BW zerg), but yield a better ratio of gas to number of workers. If you know what to do with the half base on daybreak, you should have no problem with this.
Aside from shifts in gameplay, the FRB expansions also allow for more neatly tucked away bases that do not require sprawling amounts of terrain to accommodate. This allows for space in general to have a more positional/tactical usage.
|
The layout is certainly visually striking.
I think people will probably complain that the nat is fully siegable.
|
This 4-way reflectionally symmetric layout type just doesn't work I think - it just creates too many weird proportions and gameplay issues. That said, this is probably one of the better implementations of that style that I have seen.
|
On August 22 2012 16:26 -NegativeZero- wrote:
This 4-way reflectionally symmetric layout type just doesn't work I think - it just creates too many weird proportions and gameplay issues. That said, this is probably one of the better implementations of that style that I have seen.
What gameplay issues would such a layout have?
|
@ -NegativeZero- -- Thanks, I think? 
I don't accept "X layout doesn't work" -- it is not a demonstrated argument and leaves nothing to say to it but something like "that's your opinion" or "yes, it can" or something equally non-productive.
@ nebffa -- Well, as was mentioned the natural can be sieged from all sides and not just the resources but the base location as well. To some this is an unforigivable map flaw. That does not mean however, that every reflective/rotational map has the same issues, as there are certainly many ways to produce such a layout. This one just happens to have a siegable natural.
I do think it is more difficult to come up with a good reflective/rotational symmetric map then either just a reflective or a rotational symmetry map, but I also think that such a layout will ultimately be "better" when it is done right. What does "better" mean? It means having the strengths of the two map types without having their weaknesses. I've been thinking about making a thread to discuss this on this type of layout in more depth.
While I tried to make this map as "standard" as possible within the confines of the non-standard reflective/rotational layout, I do tend to like to inject a little chaos into the metagame of my maps. On this one the two wildcards are the siegeable nat, and the FRB bases. But aside, from that, I think it plays pretty standard and has a number of nice positional and tactical elements to it.
|
Crazy double expansion in the from of each main! It might just be my eyes but a bigger picture would certainly help give a better look at the map. Kind of surprised there arent any bases in the middle-outer-edge high grounds =o
Looks really cool for a crazy reflecty map thing lol
|
On August 23 2012 03:17 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
I don't accept "X layout doesn't work" -- it is not a demonstrated argument and leaves nothing to say to it but something like "that's your opinion" or "yes, it can" or something equally non-productive.
It's not so much that it can't work - although it is a difficult layout to actually do properly - but rather it's boring conceptually. Think it through, what this is is a rotational or mirror-symmetry map, without any variety in the spawn points whatsoever. LS tried a map like this way back when, and it just isn't a captivating map style to me. Once you get over the unusual appearance of it, you discover it's literally THE most stagnant 4p map type imaginable. Not only is it not particularly interesting, it is actually really hard to do, since 4-axis symmetry is so constricting. You might as well stick to normal mirror-symmetry, to be honest.
|
@ NewSunshine -- Are you making an argument or are you expressing an opinion? If you don't like this map layout, then don't make a map with it; no one is forcing you to. On the other hand, I do not find this map layout type boring as you do. I find it exciting on three levels.
First of all, the difficulty aspect, the challenge of mastering this rare map layout type is quite appealling to me. In fact, this is my fourth or fifth attempt at this type of layout, with a couple other maps being close to reflectionally symmetrical while at least being rotationally symmetrical.
Secondly, give me a count of the number of maps out there in use that have a dual reflective/rotational symmetry (4-axis symmetry, same thing). Ok, now that we have Fastest Map out of the way, how many are in use competitively? Why wouldn't the prospect of creating the first tournament-worthy map of this layout type be exciting?
Thirdly, a map of this type is "without any variety in the spawn points whatsoever" -- in other words, is absolutely positionally balanced (with the exception of larva, add-ons, etc.). While you use words like "stagnant", I use words like "balanced". What you have the potential to wind up with is the most balanced map there can be. To me, finding that ideal is an exciting thing.
So do you lose a certain dimension that 2-axis symmetry provides where you could have three different games (close, cross, and close-air)? Sure... the close and close-air are now the same. But I think that is an acceptable trade off given those other points in terms of relative worth of the map layout type.
Of course, all of this is subjective -- "boring" is a thing of subjectivity... you can't have "objectively boring". If you have any actual argument why I should apply my creative energies toward a map layout type that everyone else is doing all the time (which to me, is much more a thing of boringness comparitively...), I invite you to present it. Otherwise, if you want to have any influence over how I spend my mapping time because of your boredom with the results, I accept cash.
(And if you are irrevocably bored in this thread, I invite you back to Deja vu Deja vu and Road Not Taken where the games are guaranteed to be less stagnant.)
|
I'm seeing a lot of high ground here that terran/ toss could easily exploit with siege/colossi.
|
On August 23 2012 07:49 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@ NewSunshine -- Are you making an argument or are you expressing an opinion? If you don't like this map layout, then don't make a map with it; no one is forcing you to. On the other hand, I do not find this map layout type boring as you do. I find it exciting on three levels. First of all, the difficulty aspect, the challenge of mastering this rare map layout type is quite appealling to me. In fact, this is my fourth or fifth attempt at this type of layout, with a couple other maps being close to reflectionally symmetrical while at least being rotationally symmetrical. Secondly, give me a count of the number of maps out there in use that have a dual reflective/rotational symmetry (4-axis symmetry, same thing). Ok, now that we have Fastest Map out of the way, how many are in use competitively? Why wouldn't the prospect of creating the first tournament-worthy map of this layout type be exciting? Thirdly, a map of this type is "without any variety in the spawn points whatsoever" -- in other words, is absolutely positionally balanced (with the exception of larva, add-ons, etc.). While you use words like "stagnant", I use words like "balanced". What you have the potential to wind up with is the most balanced map there can be. To me, finding that ideal is an exciting thing. So do you lose a certain dimension that 2-axis symmetry provides where you could have three different games (close, cross, and close-air)? Sure... the close and close-air are now the same. But I think that is an acceptable trade off given those other points in terms of relative worth of the map layout type. Of course, all of this is subjective -- "boring" is a thing of subjectivity... you can't have "objectively boring". If you have any actual argument why I should apply my creative energies toward a map layout type that everyone else is doing all the time (which to me, is much more a thing of boringness comparitively...), I invite you to present it. Otherwise, if you want to have any influence over how I spend my mapping time because of your boredom with the results, I accept cash. (And if you are irrevocably bored in this thread, I invite you back to Deja vu Deja vu and Road Not Taken where the games are guaranteed to be less stagnant.)
I see my point has gone over your head. I'm referring to the games themselves when I speak of boredom and stagnation. Also, the fact is, this map is difficult to make, but not in a good way. It's a layout that's so focused on being elaborately difficult to just make, that any reward to be found in the creation of the map is balanced by the fact that the meat of the layout, the pieces of a map that influence a game, is extremely limited. You don't need to do this type of map to achieve theoretical balance, really. Mirror symmetry does the exact same thing: make the map symmetrical for 2 players no matter the spawn points. The difference is, normal mirror maps have 3 different spawn setups, you've effectively eliminated 1 of them, and in the process made everything literally the same. Consider the alternative styles of map which only have 2 spawn possibilities - 1) rotational. Although it only has 2 spawn setups really, it's countered by the way the features of the map fall on each player differently, depending on which side they're on, but there's also cross spawns. 2) 2-in-1. This is also easy to balance if done right, but the end result can be far more interesting, since the map plays out completely differently in certain setups, but without being positionally imbalanced. If you want to achieve good balance in a map, focus less on the style of symmetry, because that can only take you so far. Focus more on the content of the map, because, without solid fundamentals, even perfect 4-way symmetry does nothing to help. I have no intention of sugar-coating things here.
Don't take things the wrong way though, I'm not getting bent out of shape, nor should you. I'm suggesting how to better focus your mapmaking energies, as it were. Take it or leave it.
|
@ NewSunshine -- Show me the money; otherwise, I'll just "leave it" if that's alright with you.
You elaborated on your orginal post, but you really didn't say anything else. "Clarifying" you were talking about the games being played on the given layout and not the layout qua layout doesn't really change anything -- so was I. What's the point of a map layout if it's not being played on? Nearly everything you said has already been answered by my first response + Show Spoiler [large parenthetical note] +(and + Show Spoiler [NewSunshine] +Mirror symmetry does the exact same thing: make the map symmetrical for 2 players no matter the spawn points. The difference is, normal mirror maps have 3 different spawn setups, you've effectively eliminated 1 of them, and in the process made everything literally the same. is simply a rewording of this + Show Spoiler [HypertonicHydroponic] +So do you lose a certain dimension that 2-axis symmetry provides where you could have three different games (close, cross, and close-air)? Sure... the close and close-air are now the same. ... so maybe one of us did make a point that went over one of our heads...)
I have no intention of sugar-coating things here.
What are you not sugar coating? If you think the content of this map is bad for some reason, please elaborate. All you have done is say you find the layout type boring, and used that as an excuse to tell me how to map. You do not dictate the reward of creation for anything but your own maps (sans payment), so your argument continues to hold no weight as it continues to be subjective.
Not only is your argument subjective, but it is falling apart. So, you are telling me not to make maps that have only two spawn setups... and then suggest that I should try a 2-in-1 map which.... has only two spawn setups...... ::facepalm:: What is going over who's head now? Should the community should stop making 2 player maps because it only really has one spawn setup?
+ Show Spoiler [another large parenthetical note] +(You really don't need to explain to me the permutations of spawn setups btw... Road Not Taken has six and Deja vu Deja vu has twelve... you think I can't figure out simple rotational or reflective?
Also, there is a case unique to 4-axis symmetry that a 2-in-1 does not have which makes it formally more interesting despite having the same number of spawn setups. In cross positions, a 4-axis symmetry map adds an extra element of decision making since after your quadrant of the map has been taken, you may wind up trying to take a base toward the same adjacent corner that your opponent does, or you might wind up trying to take a base in the opposite adjacent corner, this can change the way the game plays out greatly, while still having only two spawn setups. A 2-in-1 does not do this. Nor does 2-axis reflective, nor rotational.)
If you don't like the layout because it makes it hard for you to say what you would do to improve the map, or what parts of the map you worry about, or what you like and don't like about the content of the map, then just don't post. No one is making you bump my thread. But if you have genuine post content, then by all means post it. I can handle "I think people will probably complain that the nat is fully siegable" and "I'm seeing a lot of high ground here that terran/ toss could easily exploit with siege/colossi" -- these are valid analytical posts, albeit not very detailed or critical. This "benevolent wisdom" you are pushing is useless to me. Realize that what you are saying is only barely more relevant than "4-axis symmetry is ugly".
I'm not bent out of shape, but I'm also not going to let you appear like you are going to win a baseless argument -- not in my thread. :/
|
On August 23 2012 11:05 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@ NewSunshine -- Show me the money; otherwise, I'll just "leave it" if that's alright with you. You elaborated on your orginal post, but you really didn't say anything else. "Clarifying" you were talking about the games being played on the given layout and not the layout qua layout doesn't really change anything -- so was I. What's the point of a map layout if it's not being played on? Nearly everything you said has already been answered by my first response + Show Spoiler [large parenthetical note] +(and + Show Spoiler [NewSunshine] +Mirror symmetry does the exact same thing: make the map symmetrical for 2 players no matter the spawn points. The difference is, normal mirror maps have 3 different spawn setups, you've effectively eliminated 1 of them, and in the process made everything literally the same. is simply a rewording of this + Show Spoiler [HypertonicHydroponic] +So do you lose a certain dimension that 2-axis symmetry provides where you could have three different games (close, cross, and close-air)? Sure... the close and close-air are now the same. ... so maybe one of us did make a point that went over one of our heads...) ; except for this: I have no intention of sugar-coating things here. What are you not sugar coating? If you think the content of this map is bad for some reason, please elaborate. All you have done is say you find the layout type boring, and used that as an excuse to tell me how to map. You do not dictate the reward of creation for anything but your own maps (sans payment), so your argument continues to hold no weight as it continues to be subjective. Not only is your argument subjective, but it is falling apart. So, you are telling me not to make maps that have only two spawn setups... and then suggest that I should try a 2-in-1 map which.... has only two spawn setups...... ::facepalm:: What is going over who's head now? Should the community should stop making 2 player maps because it only really has one spawn setup? + Show Spoiler [another large parenthetical note] +(You really don't need to explain to me the permutations of spawn setups btw... Road Not Taken has six and Deja vu Deja vu has twelve... you think I can't figure out simple rotational or reflective?
Also, there is a case unique to 4-axis symmetry that a 2-in-1 does not have which makes it formally more interesting despite having the same number of spawn setups. In cross positions, a 4-axis symmetry map adds an extra element of decision making since after your quadrant of the map has been taken, you may wind up trying to take a base toward the same adjacent corner that your opponent does, or you might wind up trying to take a base in the opposite adjacent corner, this can change the way the game plays out greatly, while still having only two spawn setups. A 2-in-1 does not do this. Nor does 2-axis reflective, nor rotational.) If you don't like the layout because it makes it hard for you to say what you would do to improve the map, or what parts of the map you worry about, or what you like and don't like about the content of the map, then just don't post. No one is making you bump my thread. But if you have genuine post content, then by all means post it. I can handle "I think people will probably complain that the nat is fully siegable" and "I'm seeing a lot of high ground here that terran/ toss could easily exploit with siege/colossi" -- these are valid analytical posts, albeit not very detailed or critical. This "benevolent wisdom" you are pushing is useless to me. Realize that what you are saying is only barely more relevant than "4-axis symmetry is ugly". I'm not bent out of shape, but I'm also not going to let you appear like you are going to win a baseless argument -- not in my thread. :/
You're creating an argument out of nothing, stop getting defensive. I'm not commenting on a map to bash the author, I'm doing it to share insight to help the mapper improve. Believe it or not, I've tried this style of map too, back in the day. It's really not worth it, it's why nobody's ever seen it. Your idea isn't original, LS tried it, I've tried it, hell, the idea may have even hit some members of TPW or ESV at one point. Ideas get tossed around, but they're not all winners. Whether you choose to ignore my advice or not is up to you, but I'm not going to argue with someone who passes advice for an argument.
Oh, and stop asking for money. If anyone, Lunatic Sounds would've gotten it long before any of us.
|
It's really cool looking. FRB was fun but never proven to be balanced in any way at all.. Fun tho for sure. I like how you handled the ramp into the natural. Having it not be obvious which base to take as a third is also cool.
One thing I'd worry about is taking mains as an expansion is much more rewarding for the player doing it than taking any of the other expansions. I'm not sure how it would affect the MU's since I haven't actually seen professional games on maps that have this kind of layout AND this kind of resource availability. It is something to consider tho. Is there a way to have main spawn locations have different amounts of resources based on whether or not a player spawned there? That could fix it although it would require a little more editor and therefore not really be a melee map in the strictest sense :\
Having such wide attack paths in the center but smaller ones near bases make counterattacking less strong but flanking very doable. I like that a lot. Siege tanks on the center-most shouldn't control the ramp of the natural. I can't tell if it does or not. Regardless, that area looks like it has all kinds of potential for tomfoolery which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just pointing it out.
Looks like it has potential. I am worried by the FRB-normal hybrid thing tho
|
@ NewSunshine -- I'm not asking for money, I'm making a point: you have nothing to offer me. You think I think I'm the only person to have thought of doing 4-axis symmetry? My point is that I am going to make it work or have fun (and learn a lot) trying. If no map of mine ever makes it into a tournament, so be it, but I'm going to tackle the difficult, strange, and unpopular ideas as I direct my creative energies trying to make a tournament-worthy map. Any "advice" to the contrary is futile. If you have any actual content related criticism please leave it.
EDIT: @ VictorJones -- Ninja'd. 
While FRB was never proven to be balanced, it also wasn't proven to be wildly imbalanced. That's part of the reason why I wanted to experiment a bit with it, but as a hybrid. I think it should get a little bit more attention and prove itself out a bit more before we let go of it completely.
I'm not sure I like the idea of using triggers to manage the resources at other bases (at least, not with the intention of making a tournament-able map) -- I have no doubt I could get that to work, but in my mind being able to take another main/natural should come with at least a bit of an extra advantage since you have that much extra distance to cover in defending both places at once. The "circle syndrome" effect gets much higher if you risk taking an adjacent natural/main. Plus, this paradigm did wind up working in BW, particularly for Zerg (I know it's a different game  ).
I'm not yet convinced that tanks are too strong around the natural just yet, either from the expansion in front of the natural or anywhere else around the natural. I am playing around with it though. If you happen to doing any testing with it I'd be interested to hear your analysis. If that front expansion in particular has a problem being used to control the exit to the natural, I have some ideas about how to modify that area and coincidentally, turn it back into a standard 16 base 8m 2g map, but I'm saving that for when light has been shed on the last shadow of a doubt. Until then, I'd like to continue trying this 20-base-with-the-economic-power-of-17-bases approach.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate the thoughtful analysis. :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KBiT6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x9PjF.jpg)
