|
your Country52796 Posts
With my 666th post I will submit my ultimate map.
The most crazy stuff about it.
+ Show Spoiler +
The first side:
+ Show Spoiler +-3 players
-1 player has a protected expansion that can be sieged when rocks are broken.
-1 player has a very standard, Shattered Temple-like Main-Nat-Third Setup.
-1 player has a completely crazy main setup, with the minerals against the cliff with 2 ramps nearby. One ramp can be walled against melee units with just 1 3x3 structure, while the other has a 4x4 space. The natural is directly below that with 2 entrances+ the third, which has rocks that both block it and block an attack path.
The other side:
+ Show Spoiler +-4 players
-1 player has a protected expansion behind his minerals.
-1 player has a single large ramp near him leading into the natural.
-1 player has a person on either side of him, and therefore has a lower expansion possibility but more protection.
-1 player has 2 ramps, both leading out into natural expansions. 1 is the main natural, and the other is an isolated natural with a cliffable spot blocked off by rocks.
Contested bases:
+ Show Spoiler +There are 7 contested expansions, 4 closer to the team with 4 players and 3 closer to the team with 3 players.
The middle:
+ Show Spoiler +The middle is where I outdid myself in comparison to my standards. It's a beautiful blend between the terrain from both sides+Char Rock. There are 2 gold metalopolis-style bases with a ramp leading into a watchtower placed similarly to the one in Abyssal.
Something that this map shows about me:
+ Show Spoiler +I am a boss with rocks and I love using them ^.^
THE MAP:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Mr43I.jpg) The black streaks show where the start locations are.
gg.
+ Show Spoiler +
Edit: Forgot a few things.
My goal with this map:
+ Show Spoiler +My goal was to try to create the most balanced imbalanced map with uneven amounts of players/bases. I also set out to create a map with more, weaker players on one of the teams.
My history with positionally imbalanced maps (BORING DON'T READ) :
+ Show Spoiler +I started with the 7 player map Death Caves (Published on NA, FFA map). The map was a major success, with one game played on it that lasted 55 minutes because one guy turtled on the island for the last 15 minutes. The map featured very similar mains, followed by wildly different natural-third setups with contested thirds and watchtowers outside of everyone's bases.
Then, one day, I drew maps for fun, and I came up with the 2 player map The HunT. The map had a good concept, but the execution was so bad that I scrapped it.
Later, I came up with the map Veed Acthas (Published on NA, FFA map). This map had very standard naturals but crazy mains (1 exception). It too was a major success, with me winning the only game ever played on it because I got killed early on, lifted to the center island, and massed air units and a-moved.
With my sights then set on 1v1 maps, I came up with the map Quadruple Territories (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which had slightly different main-nat setups, similar thirds, and a symmetrical center.
I felt disoriented, as my Imbamaps, as I knew them, were not improving along with my other maps. I made Lava Magnus (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which was a 3 player map intended for this competition, but I saw everyone else was doing the same thing, and set my sights on a team map. The results are seen here today.
|
I am a relax.
I am merely explaining what irked me about your manner, and seperately, offering counterpoint to your criticism showing what reasoning I had in allowing the things you object to in my map, and why I think those things taken together actually make the map work. You are still free to think those things may be a problem, but I would invite you to phrase it as such and wait to say things are a "no-go" until you've tried it out a few times.
I never said you were hypocritical, which is the condemning of a behavior of another while engaging in the same behavior with an air of impunity. I said I thought you were being self contradictory, or inconsistent if you will, in saying you wanted to see innovation and then shooting down the innovations you were seeing. I tried to phrase this as gently as possible while still relating the fact of my perception. This does not of course mean that you cannot be discerning about the innovations you see, but the majority of your comments have seemed to be criticism, so it seems inconsistent.
I'm willing to drop the "you said this so I said this" part of this discussion since it seems that everything has been laid out already and anything further would be redundant -- you were just saying this, I was just saying that; I think we're good now. If you still want to dicuss my map features, shoot.
I hope to do a few more tests and maybe a tweak or two and publish it this weekend. Then you can really tear into it. 
|
your Country52796 Posts
On September 04 2011 06:46 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:I am a relax. I am merely explaining what irked me about your manner, and seperately, offering counterpoint to your criticism showing what reasoning I had in allowing the things you object to in my map, and why I think those things taken together actually make the map work. You are still free to think those things may be a problem, but I would invite you to phrase it as such and wait to say things are a "no-go" until you've tried it out a few times. I never said you were hypocritical, which is the condemning of a behavior of another while engaging in the same behavior with an air of impunity. I said I thought you were being self contradictory, or inconsistent if you will, in saying you wanted to see innovation and then shooting down the innovations you were seeing. I tried to phrase this as gently as possible while still relating the fact of my perception. This does not of course mean that you cannot be discerning about the innovations you see, but the majority of your comments have seemed to be criticism, so it seems inconsistent. I'm willing to drop the "you said this so I said this" part of this discussion since it seems that everything has been laid out already and anything further would be redundant -- you were just saying this, I was just saying that; I think we're good now. If you still want to dicuss my map features, shoot. I hope to do a few more tests and maybe a tweak or two and publish it this weekend. Then you can really tear into it.
It's almost as awesome as seven sins, don't worry 
|
@ TehTemplar -- Funky stuff, friend. Pretty zany. Me likes. Am I correct in assuming the balance is drawn from the team of four being stuck on 2 bases longer than the team of three? It seems like the team of four will have 8 "safe"/"quick" bases while the team of 3 will have 9 "safe"/"quick" bases. Is that how this plays out for you?
|
Actually I would say the opposite - that map is good because its not crazy or zany or the like. It looks simply amazing and well thought out. Ofc a 3v4 map is never going to be used competively, but it just looks well balanced in every way.
First of, there really are no ways to cheese on this map. The top 3 players start on a virtual fort, and if they are not totally incompetent, any cheese is fought off easily. If you on the other hand decide to rush as 3 against 4 you should have your head examined.
Secondly the maps strongpoints seems very deliberate. The bottom team have a difficult time defending without a lot of units, but thats okay because they will have more units. On the other hand the top team has an easier time defending with tech units.
The only thing I see that needs attention is the 10-11 o'clock part of the map. With the main attack paths cutting this part of the map out, it seems hard to expand up there.
|
Is anyone else reading this thread thinking about Garden of War?
|
Good call, Sunrunner. I definately played me some Garden of War on Engage back in the day. The only question now is how to equate minerals and gas to gold and wood (dare I mention oil?) -- I'm sure someone out there has done this already. I think something would get lost in the translation though.
|
Hey guys! Just uploaded my entry to TL's website! Here's the link:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=263477
And here's an overview picture.
*Edit, you may have to R-Click and open image in a new tab/window to view properly. Not sure how to get them to fit, sorry. . .
*Final Submission*
+ Show Spoiler +
Please check out the post!
Thanks, and GL to everyone. All of the entries look great!
|
keep them coming. there are some really different approaches already. don't forget some texture polishing to avoid damaging our eyes
edit:
some wip comments before the final days:
Glexam:
please consider where you would position your army to secure a two base or a three base play and what that means regarding the control of bases. to me it looks as if the two players on the outside have to expand away and travel far to secure a third when up against the player at 1, but then gain access to too many bases easily.
also all your bases terrain and setup up first three bases is symmetrical (rotational and mirror).
lawol:
unsure about the way you use the backdoors. the player at 12 has to cross the whole map to defend the backdoor/rocks. maybe you consider changing your map somehow to make up for this imbalance ot change the backdoor setup here alltogether. i am unsure if the extra safe three base will make up for it really, but we will see!
Rumble Badger:
I do not like how the map layout develops not all all. no matter if you are on one, two, three or four bases, you army positiong will be very similar - and fourth influenece is quite a bit different for everyone- on the other hand getting a fifth is really hard. in 5 vs 7 the player at 7 has almost no chance to get a fifth while the 7 wins it all when going in a lategame while being same strenght until then.
dezi:
I'd love to see an influence image here
templar: you are crazy and your texturing makes my eyes hurt.
|
|
|
your Country52796 Posts
How is this goin to be judged?
|
the four judges are going to discuss all maps bases on images, analyzer and playing and will then comment on every map + give special prices for special stuff.
|
your Country52796 Posts
Umm, what if I can't get analyzer? :o
|
On September 04 2011 04:23 TehTemplar wrote:With my 666th post I will submit my ultimate map. The most crazy stuff about it.+ Show Spoiler +The first side:+ Show Spoiler +-3 players
-1 player has a protected expansion that can be sieged when rocks are broken.
-1 player has a very standard, Shattered Temple-like Main-Nat-Third Setup.
-1 player has a completely crazy main setup, with the minerals against the cliff with 2 ramps nearby. One ramp can be walled against melee units with just 1 3x3 structure, while the other has a 4x4 space. The natural is directly below that with 2 entrances+ the third, which has rocks that both block it and block an attack path. : + Show Spoiler +-4 players
-1 player has a protected expansion behind his minerals.
-1 player has a single large ramp near him leading into the natural.
-1 player has a person on either side of him, and therefore has a lower expansion possibility but more protection.
-1 player has 2 ramps, both leading out into natural expansions. 1 is the main natural, and the other is an isolated natural with a cliffable spot blocked off by rocks. : + Show Spoiler +There are 7 contested expansions, 4 closer to the team with 4 players and 3 closer to the team with 3 players. The middle is where I outdid myself in comparison to my standards. It's a beautiful blend between the terrain from both sides+Char Rock. There are 2 gold metalopolis-style bases with a ramp leading into a watchtower placed similarly to the one in Abyssal. I am a boss with rocks and I love using them ^.^ : + Show Spoiler +The black streaks show where the start locations are. gg. + Show Spoiler +Edit: Forgot a few things. My goal with this map: + Show Spoiler +My goal was to try to create the most balanced imbalanced map with uneven amounts of players/bases. I also set out to create a map with more, weaker players on one of the teams. I started with the 7 player map Death Caves (Published on NA, FFA map). The map was a major success, with one game played on it that lasted 55 minutes because one guy turtled on the island for the last 15 minutes. The map featured very similar mains, followed by wildly different natural-third setups with contested thirds and watchtowers outside of everyone's bases.
Then, one day, I drew maps for fun, and I came up with the 2 player map The HunT. The map had a good concept, but the execution was so bad that I scrapped it.
Later, I came up with the map Veed Acthas (Published on NA, FFA map). This map had very standard naturals but crazy mains (1 exception). It too was a major success, with me winning the only game ever played on it because I got killed early on, lifted to the center island, and massed air units and a-moved.
With my sights then set on 1v1 maps, I came up with the map Quadruple Territories (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which had slightly different main-nat setups, similar thirds, and a symmetrical center.
I felt disoriented, as my Imbamaps, as I knew them, were not improving along with my other maps. I made Lava Magnus (Published on NA, 1v1 map), which was a 3 player map intended for this competition, but I saw everyone else was doing the same thing, and set my sights on a team map. The results are seen here today.
Holy man this is epic! Until I read your goal though it seemed like it was supposed to be around equal skill 3v4 with the 3 side having more advantages, but it seems not.
Will probably play on this map a couple times with friends if we only have 7 people ^-^
|
working title is Folly Fields and here are some minor terrain changes top prevent to much siege tank power from the small middlegrounds and also contains. XWT was moved so that it does not see the ramp down to the expansion at 12.
i think the concept and expansion layout is quite clear.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PLJoE.jpg)
any comments? don't be shy! feel free to say anything. I won't judge your maps based on your judging of my map
|
hmm - I can't see what advantages the north position has over the south. The south position has an easy second base that is impossible to deny while the north position has a wide open natural. The third is a bit easier to take for the north position, but its still hard for me to see why I should not clearly prefer the south in every way.
I say the north position needs some love, otherwise its a solid map.
|
Heres the final version of my submission, its EU only right now so hope thats not a problem! I can send the file if needed.
Author name: lawol
Map title: Barren Wastes (EU only atm)
The map's overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Summary pic:
+ Show Spoiler +
Rush distances pics:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
your Country52796 Posts
templar: you are crazy and your texturing makes my eyes hurt.
I expected this exact response!
|
Just wondering if a summary of the maps in consideration by the judges could be added in list format to a spoiler in the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Updated%20Photos/BROverview2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Birthrights-influence-10-4-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Birthrights-shortestPaths-10-4-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l504/ledwater4/StarCraft%202%20maps/Birthrights%20Map/Birthrights-shortestPaths-10-4-nats-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kTf5fl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bsNFBl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k0QpF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ITyHd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LrhKA.jpg)
