|
Mutation
by R3mnant
Version 0.1
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EyTYjxe.jpg)
Overview
Size: 180 x 180
Starting positions: 4
Bases: 12 full bases, 8 half bases
Towers: 1
Hi mapmaking community!
My last map was a great success, and even inspired other map makers! However, I feel that it is time for me to climb to the top of map making. After much research and analysis, I have found that I must master using space efficiently.
To find out how space efficiency could impact the quality of a map, I have compiled data from many maps. While it may seem difficult to put a number on how good a map is, it can be done. SC2Melee.net map ratings provide a quantifiable way to measure map quality.
Using an image editing program, I was able to calculate how efficiently each map used its space. I paired this data with each map's SC2Melee.net rating, and ran a regression test. This is the result:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7LjI1vn.png)
Using the equation provided by regression, we can extrapolate what score Mutation would get on SC2Melee.net: 9.8!
GG Cloud Kingdom
Besides utilizing all the space provided by the boundaries, here are some other map features:
- half bases in key locations, forcing engagements as players fight for scarce resources
- highground that allows for wise positional play
- the watchtower is at a key strategic location, but there are counter attack paths that go around it
Other notable features:
+ Show Spoiler [features] +
Close Ups:
+ Show Spoiler [closeups] +
Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler [changelog] +
Please leave comments in this thread! I hope you will all enjoy this map and appreciate my map analysis.
Be sure to take a look at my other maps!
Dissociative Identity Disorder
Judgement Day
R3mnant
|
|
|
Wow, the math behind this idea is really something. A lot of people don't pay attention to those kinds of things, myself included.
I love the design, the third is in a very interesting location and the middle still has a lot of zone control areas. I'm not sure about having 8 low resource expansions on one map. That is a bit unorthodox, you never really see that many half bases on one map. I'm not saying that it's bad and needs to be changed, it's just unusual and difficult to tell how it would balance out.
180x180 is very large. If you could find a way to shrink the overall map size without disturbing the space of the map too much, I'd do it.
|
The map itself looks amazing and i cant wait to get some games on it. However I have no idea what the hype over efficiently filling in the map bounds is for. I've heard the reasoning and i think its bad logic. "lets be creative"'s worst enemy is a list of rules. Maybe i want to create a map that's pretty much a figure-8(patent pending  )? It would most likely get a terrible map efficiency score but that 'score' has NOTHING to do with a good map.
|
Can you explain your thoughts on the expansion process? My impression is that you're making it very difficult to take a third, but then handing the player a free 4th and a very easy 5th.
|
The backdoor third looks rather safe, particularly from air attacks.
EDIT: I thought that bush wall next to the expansions was just LOS blockers. Still, i'd still only rate this slightly less defend-able than entombed valley's third, without the rocks yet broken down.
|
Unsane, "let's be creative" is aided by rules and restrictions. creativity within restrictions is way more interesting than unbounded construction. This is why we appreciate art mediums. They create restrictions. Watching somebody speedrun Super Mario 64 is great because they are displaying brilliance within the confines of the rules. This is also why we find watching people play starcraft impressive, no?
Having rules and limitations can be wonderful, but there is certainly a limit. Space efficiency seems to force people to think of interesting ways of filling it, and therefore contributes to map making rather than subtracting from it.
|
We appreciate art media nowadays? I've personally always found the best art to be genre-defying.
I personally think space efficiency tends to ruin good ideas and create awkward proportions as people try to squeeze their concept into a square too much.
|
what is the nat-nat timing?
|
On February 25 2013 07:19 RFDaemoniac wrote:
Unsane, "let's be creative" is aided by rules and restrictions. creativity within restrictions is way more interesting than unbounded construction. This is why we appreciate art mediums. They create restrictions. Watching somebody speedrun Super Mario 64 is great because they are displaying brilliance within the confines of the rules. This is also why we find watching people play starcraft impressive, no?
Having rules and limitations can be wonderful, but there is certainly a limit. Space efficiency seems to force people to think of interesting ways of filling it, and therefore contributes to map making rather than subtracting from it.
A certain amount of rules is required, of course. You misinterpreted to what extent i meant "lists of rules are bad for creativity". This has to be done in SC2editor, and played in SC2. I think the game(and the various input devices) was created with the assumption most people have 8fingers and 2 thumbs. Its the arbitrary rules that don't aid creativity such as the need to completely fill the map bounds with stuff. Siskos posted with specific diagrams of areas on cloud kingdom and daybreak where the forcing of map into the rectangular shape created kinda awkward areas and I can find on many maps where the odd need to reduce the map bounds as much as possible only effects the outside perimeter of the map in awkward and bad ways. It's funny, this is perhaps the one way i feel blizzard did not screw up on their maps.
EDIT: o look siskos
|
On February 25 2013 07:19 RFDaemoniac wrote:
Unsane, "let's be creative" is aided by rules and restrictions. creativity within restrictions is way more interesting than unbounded construction. This is why we appreciate art mediums. They create restrictions. Watching somebody speedrun Super Mario 64 is great because they are displaying brilliance within the confines of the rules. This is also why we find watching people play starcraft impressive, no?
Having rules and limitations can be wonderful, but there is certainly a limit. Space efficiency seems to force people to think of interesting ways of filling it, and therefore contributes to map making rather than subtracting from it.
Do you read Maro at mtg.com? 
|
This guy, man. He is quickly becoming a mapmaking legend.
|
R^2=0.64...
... :|
I think I like this map, but only for crossspawns. As a first impression it seems very rough to me to spawn counter-clockwise from your opponent (harder to hold ¾-bases/pocket full-base, natural siegeable from behind cliff, etc.).
For cross-spawns I really like the narrow middle and think that it'll will provide an interesting dynamic. Could probably become a deathtrap in the later stages of the game if you're not careful with your army.
I also like the abundancy of ¾-bases and the somewhat gimmicky pocket full-bases a ridicolously long ground distance away.
Although this goes against your hypothesis on map space efficiency, I do think, that I would find the map more aesthetically pleasing if you cut a bit into the edges, much like CK does it. The way to the full-bases seems unnecessarily wide to me anyway.
Also, what's up with the flat ground behind the los-blockers? Is that really to be considered space efficient?
All in all I really like what this map is looking to become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8JCzcsc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UJMgAk2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Zxujys.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8utPi1a.jpg)
