|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3eQZe.jpg)
TPW Hunting Grounds
by lefix
Map Size: 158x158
Tileset: Bel'shir
Spawns: 4
Bases: 16
Published: NA/EU
About:
Sharing some thoughts on this maps, other than that I love space platforms:
I haven't really done any 4p maps in a long time. It's just so much easier to make a good 2p map than a good 4p map. But you got to step out of your comfort zone every once in a while, right? 
I was aiming for a layout where expansions were evenly spread out on the map, as opposed to all lining up along the map borders. I tried to provide an attractive expansion pattern in both directions (CW and CCW) after taking the first 3 bases.Overall I personally think the map flows very nicely.
There's Xel'Naga Towers that give you good vision of the center area of the map (the shortest attack path leads through the center), while not giving actual vision of the center bases.
Obviously, in close positions, there's some little advantages and disadvantages to each side, which I tried to even out as best as I could. So far I have gotten very positive feedback. It will require some more testing of course.
Screenshots:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8MfDZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sb8ue.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Pu0Jf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OCT7k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rLl1T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4CzIu.jpg)
|
Gorgeous and love the idea behind.
|
|
|
First look and all I saw was Tal'Darim Altar. Then I looked closer...
Looks good, though it's funny to see a dirt platform floating in space...
The centre looks like a nightmare for zerg with all the chokes and high ground. I'm probably wrong though.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
Looks awesome. The third and fourth are not immediately next to each other so you've promoted army movement and the center is chokey enough, but with enough routes to run around and flank to make it balanced.
Will certainly look forward to playing this.
|
Looks good man, like the relativity easy third.
|
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though.
|
On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though.
I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur.
|
I disagree. While it is certainly true, that rotational symetry allows for some imbalances, it really destroys the whole purpose of 4 player maps and turns them into just bigger 2 player maps. If the positional advantages are very small, the different kinds of playstyle from genuine 4 player maps outweight them in my opinion. It just provides more variance in playstyle with all possible spawns.
So the better way in my opinion is to create genuine 4 player maps with as small of rotational advantages as possible, not design pseudo 4 player maps. I think this map looks promising in that regard.
|
|
|
Generally this map is very similar to a 4-player version of CK, not bad. 4-player maps suck though.
Your aesthetics are very well done but I think the color-scheme sucks.
|
On October 05 2012 22:26 mouzKaelaris wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though. I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur.
Thanks for commenting Kaelaris, it's great to have some of the SC2 personalities taking an interest, however small, in the map making process.
4p maps are a tricky one. IMO 4p rotational maps should never be cross only, if they are forced cross then they may as well be 2p maps. But then you have the problem that if you don't want slight asymmetries then the entire map pool will be 2p maps with maybe a 4p mirror with close spawns disabled. Personally I don't mind slight asymmetries as long as there are no big advantages for certain spawns, in the same way that the 3 races have differences but they all even out. I would like to get more player's views on this though.
I can't spot any obvious advantages in close spawns except for potentially the 3rd, and that's one of those things that is difficult to tell without a lot of play data. Overall, it's a really solid map, good job! The only thing that I feel is slightly lacking is in the aesthetics which seem like your standard grassy jungle affair, albeit on a floating platform in space! Something a bit more unique would be cool
|
On October 05 2012 23:37 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 22:26 mouzKaelaris wrote:On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though. I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur. Thanks for commenting Kaelaris, it's great to have some of the SC2 personalities taking an interest, however small, in the map making process. 4p maps are a tricky one. IMO 4p rotational maps should never be cross only, if they are forced cross then they may as well be 2p maps. But then you have the problem that if you don't want slight asymmetries then the entire map pool will be 2p maps with maybe a 4p mirror with close spawns disabled. Personally I don't mind slight asymmetries as long as there are no big advantages for certain spawns, in the same way that the 3 races have differences but they all even out. I would like to get more player's views on this though. I can't spot any obvious advantages in close spawns except for potentially the 3rd, and that's one of those things that is difficult to tell without a lot of play data. Overall, it's a really solid map, good job! The only thing that I feel is slightly lacking is in the aesthetics which seem like your standard grassy jungle affair, albeit on a floating platform in space! Something a bit more unique would be cool
Of course it is pretty hard to tell what will happen without game-data but that there WILL be imbalances is extremely likely.
However BW did not die due to map imbalance. One of the problems might be the fact that SC2 players don´t adapt at all to a map.
|
On October 05 2012 23:51 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 23:37 OxyGenesis wrote:On October 05 2012 22:26 mouzKaelaris wrote:On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though. I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur. Thanks for commenting Kaelaris, it's great to have some of the SC2 personalities taking an interest, however small, in the map making process. 4p maps are a tricky one. IMO 4p rotational maps should never be cross only, if they are forced cross then they may as well be 2p maps. But then you have the problem that if you don't want slight asymmetries then the entire map pool will be 2p maps with maybe a 4p mirror with close spawns disabled. Personally I don't mind slight asymmetries as long as there are no big advantages for certain spawns, in the same way that the 3 races have differences but they all even out. I would like to get more player's views on this though. I can't spot any obvious advantages in close spawns except for potentially the 3rd, and that's one of those things that is difficult to tell without a lot of play data. Overall, it's a really solid map, good job! The only thing that I feel is slightly lacking is in the aesthetics which seem like your standard grassy jungle affair, albeit on a floating platform in space! Something a bit more unique would be cool Of course it is pretty hard to tell what will happen without game-data but that there WILL be imbalances is extremely likely. However BW did not die due to map imbalance. One of the problems might be the fact that SC2 players don´t adapt at all to a map.
I think we are at a point now where we can spot the exploitable things in close spawns like the nat cliffs on Tal'Darim or the 3rds on Antiga, the question is are there other imbalances that we won't spot until a map gets played a lot? Even in symmetrical maps you get map features that favour specific races, the centre bases on cross-only Antiga favour terran for instance, yet the map as a whole still seems pretty balanced. When you have an asymmetrical map such as close spawns you balance it exactly the same way, you just have the 3 mirror matchups to worry about as well. The problem with 4p rotational maps is that you are much more limited in the changes that you can make to balance them. I don't think that asymmetrical maps are inherently flawed though, as the whole game is slightly asymmetrical, they are just harder to balance. I enjoy the challenge
|
This is basically what Burning Altar should have been.
Ah yeah 158x158, extra space gettin the job done.
Best part about this map: center bases that aren't revealed by towers or too close together.
|
On October 06 2012 02:04 EatThePath wrote:
This is basically what Burning Altar should have been.
Ah yeah 158x158, extra space gettin the job done.
Best part about this map: center bases that aren't revealed by towers or too close together.
you think i missed to add 4 bases? :D
edit: forgot something.
asking 4p rotational being cross spawn only is like saying there should no be any 2p maps because of steppes of war. sorry for being harsh.. if your point was true, why should one bother doing 4p maps at all when you can do many more interesting things on 2p maps cause more bases are more divers? cross only is no alternative, only a way to fix broken maps.
there are two actual problems in 4p rotational when design is flawed: rush distances n2n being too short or long and fourth being to easy to decline from the middle while getting towards maxed.
i'd understand complains that it is to easy to control all towers, once ahead. comeback are difficult and fourth bases are then taken away easily.
|
On October 06 2012 02:13 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 02:04 EatThePath wrote:
This is basically what Burning Altar should have been.
Ah yeah 158x158, extra space gettin the job done.
Best part about this map: center bases that aren't revealed by towers or too close together. you think i missed to add 4 bases? :D
It was another era. We were just kids back then. XD
|
On October 05 2012 22:26 mouzKaelaris wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though. I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur.
Why on earth would this map need to be cross-position only? I get the idea of making general statements that end up being fairly accurate in terms of 4p SC2 maps we've seen in the past, but at the end of the day the act of disabling certain spawns should always be done on a case-by-case basis. What you're essentially asking is for there to be no 4p maps, only 2p maps with some of them switching the angle between top-left/bottom-right and top-right/bottom-left every now and again.
It's not like BW maps were magically free of these supposed "positional advantages", but that players adapted to the map and specific spawns. That's a key part of the game and what helps keep a map fresh and exciting. Sure, a map like Antiga Shipyard has some pretty big imbalances due to its design -- which forces it to be cross-spawn to simply be playable in a tournament format -- but I haven't really heard a compelling reason as to why this map should be subject to the same kind of patchwork fix.
|
On October 05 2012 22:26 mouzKaelaris wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though. I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur.
Well if you make a 4p rotational and you then make it cross only, you essentially just made a 2p map. Except it's not a good 2p map since you worked with the restrictions of a 4p map for a 2p map.
What I want to say is, the idea of making 4p rotation maps cross only is utterly retarded as a concept.
Asymmetry isn't as bad as people make it out to be. You want to avoid it yes, and so we do in 2p maps since its avoidable.
But you can work around asymmetry and you can work with asymmetry. It is simply harder to balance, yet you can have a lot of fun with it by giving different advantages and disadvantages. SC 2 is a game of asymmetry anyway, since races are asymmetric.
Also as well as slight asymmetry, slight imbalance isn't horrible. If you want to have a constantly changing map pool with fresh and new ideas you will always have the danger of maps being slightly imbalanced. Well, just try to fix it or simply remove them then and move on.
BW had many maps that were slightly imbalanced, many maps that were 3p or 4p and also many maps that just had unnecessary asymmetry.
Did it destroy BW? No, quite the opposite.
Constantly playing new maps with new ideas was one of the reasons why the game could be interesting for such a long time.
|
On October 06 2012 02:16 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 22:26 mouzKaelaris wrote:On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though. I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur. Why on earth would this map need to be cross-position only? I get the idea of making general statements that end up being fairly accurate in terms of 4p SC2 maps we've seen in the past, but at the end of the day the act of disabling certain spawns should always be done on a case-by-case basis. What you're essentially asking is for there to be no 4p maps, only 2p maps with some of them switching the angle between top-left/bottom-right and top-right/bottom-left every now and again. It's not like BW maps were magically free of these supposed "positional advantages", but that players adapted to the map and specific spawns. That's a key part of the game and what helps keep a map fresh and exciting. Sure, a map like Antiga Shipyard has some pretty big imbalances due to its design -- which forces it to be cross-spawn to simply be playable in a tournament format -- but I haven't really heard a compelling reason as to why this map should be subject to the same kind of patchwork fix.
Antiga cross spawn is more like a band-aid than a fix anyway. It's not really a good way to rectify an inherently bad map. Which this is not.
Positional balance should only be considered for mirror matchups since the other matchups are by definition asymmetric anyway. Here the only potential problem may be the vulnerability of the cw spawn to tank elevator play at the natural, which shouldn't be gamebreaking.
While cw has to take the natural "towards" the opponent, it also has a much easier tower that actually watches the attack paths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
