|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBE6C.jpg)
HOyHOY
This map happens to be a finalist have ended up in 4/5th place in the TL map Contest so I hought I'd finally make a thread for further imagery as well as some feedback.
The map is currently published under the [TLMC] tag on NA/SEA/EU
----
Overview:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3jWkT.jpg)
click for big pic!
--outdated--
65° overview:
http://i.imgur.com/EpIGJ.jpg
"Dirty" overview:
http://i.imgur.com/XLeGv.jpg
----
# of Players: 3
Playable Bounds: 147x146
Tileset: Bel'Shir
----
Map analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler +
----
Random Closeups:
+ Show Spoiler +
----
Change Log:
1.1+ Show Spoiler +
1.2+ Show Spoiler +
-removed a few critters.
-changed main mineral/gas formations.
-changed/widened bounds a tiny bit to balance airspace.
-added some 6-7 doodads.
Thanks in advance for any feedback or comments.
Grebliv
|
I think this is my favorite finalist of the contest.
the usage of the temple wall doodads to make the center radially symmetric is really smart.
|
your Country52796 Posts
The middle reminds me of Tempest.
My eyes went O_O when I saw that map was a finalist. <3 3 player maps!
|
The texturing, 'tis nice.
Are you using no-fly zones to make the airspace more symmetrical?
The 11 main is not as skinny as the other ones, and the ramp there looks 2squares farther from the ntural CC spot. Not that I think it matters but just pointing it out if you do. ^^
|
|
|
On November 13 2011 12:10 Modernist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 11:56 EatThePath wrote:
Are you using no-fly zones to make the airspace more symmetrical? This! It looks like the bottom-left main has a little disadvantage here. Great map nonetheless.
I don't think he's using it because it can be extremely glitchy and Blizzard probably won't like it. It shouldn't be a huge issue anyway though.
|
There are many positional imbalances.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G0nlp.jpg)
Problem is that almost every imbalance is top spawn favored, so they dont cancel each other.
The air space thing is by far the worst thou, as its game breaking in XvZ, because in ZvZ spawning SW means enemy can see drone count with overlord which is bacicly free map hacks, and in T/PvZ muta harash is twise as potent when they have a free escape to safety no matter what part of the main they are harassing.
|
|
|
On November 13 2011 11:25 Namrufus wrote:
I think this is my favorite finalist of the contest.
the usage of the temple wall doodads to make the center radially symmetric is really smart.
On November 13 2011 11:28 TehTemplar wrote:
The middle reminds me of Tempest.
My eyes went O_O when I saw that map was a finalist. <3 3 player maps!
ty 
On November 13 2011 17:50 Sea_Food wrote:There are many positional imbalances. + Show Spoiler +Problem is that almost every imbalance is top spawn favored, so they dont cancel each other. The air space thing is by far the worst thou, as its game breaking in XvZ, because in ZvZ spawning SW means enemy can see drone count with overlord which is bacicly free map hacks, and in T/PvZ muta harash is twise as potent when they have a free escape to safety no matter what part of the main they are harassing.
Fixed it so that you can force field zerglings out at all nat chokes with 3ff's, thanks for pointing that out.
The three wider bridges have doodads to make them more narrow, I added a few though to try to make it a bit more thorough, the three smaller bridges are all the same width, Effectively they all come out about the same, you can block with 2 ff's, or same amount of units where applicable.
Pic: http://i.imgur.com/BWiVd.jpg.
On the air space aspect, really the only things i could do would be to have ridiculous map bounds or more realistically having shattered temple style walls on a tiny bit behind the main (would mostly solve overlord problems, although having more airspace would still obviously be worse but less so and I'm not sure people would like it more than the imbalance, is under consideration though).
----
On November 13 2011 11:56 EatThePath wrote:
The texturing, 'tis nice.
Are you using no-fly zones to make the airspace more symmetrical?
The 11 main is not as skinny as the other ones, and the ramp there looks 2squares farther from the ntural CC spot. Not that I think it matters but just pointing it out if you do. ^^
On November 13 2011 12:10 Modernist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 11:56 EatThePath wrote:
Are you using no-fly zones to make the airspace more symmetrical? This! It looks like the bottom-left main has a little disadvantage here. Great map nonetheless.
About air blocking, well...
1. It feels really weird even when it works since you can still order stuff to go to blocked places and they can take silly routes and or get stuck (like units against ff's).
This will happen a lot since people usually/often send drops and air stuff around the edges and corners, Air blocking does not change the minimap.
2. With air blocking in the corner this "ordinarily navigated" medivac will never reach it's destination: http://i.imgur.com/4Ylwk.png.
3. Blizzard would probably not like it at all even if I got it functional.
|
Glad you updated the aesthetics, before it was quite ugly ^^
Very standard and solid 3p map, could have a change to get picked up by Blizz
|
This is actually really clean and peaceful - a Bel'shir map I like. New textures and doodads are much better.
|
Man, everyone is retexturing his winning entry... That's quite the effort when we are in the final run. And it looks good too.
|
I just saw this map for the first time in the Korean Weekly. I really like the architecture in the middle, and three player maps always make me excited.
I was wondering if Grebliv could comment on the size of the bases? Especially the bottom right one seems to be extremely small - it's been extended a bit back, but I wouldn't want to fit a bunch of barracks back there, that would make reinforcing the front against some kind of 1-base play very awkward. I can also imagine having problems against 1-base blink pressure and early colossus/tank pushes.
|
Canada6688 Posts
the airspace problem is an easy fix; it looks like you can bring the bottom border up a little bit, bring the top border out a bit, and bring the right border out a bit as well
on the rotational imbalance ... the map is alot like xelnaga fortress with expansion pattern to the middle rather than out radially. unlike xnf, you can expand in the other direction much easier, though, the distance is a bit further than going to the middle base.
and regarding the top ramp ... this is a problem with 3p maps that is very hard and very frustrating to come up with a solution. the problem is that the ramp direction forces you into certain base layouts - and specific positions on the map - if you want to try to be 100% balanced. i dont know how you can fix this on your map without significantly altering the nat
|
Updated
-removed a few critters
-changed main mineral/gas formations
-changed/widened bounds a tiny bit to balance airspace.
-added a few doodads
--------
On December 07 2011 10:21 Andreas wrote:
I just saw this map for the first time in the Korean Weekly. I really like the architecture in the middle, and three player maps always make me excited.
I was wondering if Grebliv could comment on the size of the bases? Especially the bottom right one seems to be extremely small - it's been extended a bit back, but I wouldn't want to fit a bunch of barracks back there, that would make reinforcing the front against some kind of 1-base play very awkward. I can also imagine having problems against 1-base blink pressure and early colossus/tank pushes.
Ty. On the bases they are all the same size it's mostly the mineral formations that govern how natural building placement feels. Been fixed mostly, especially in relation to the 3 o'clock base.
On December 07 2011 11:00 a176 wrote:
the airspace problem is an easy fix; it looks like you can bring the bottom border up a little bit, bring the top border out a bit, and bring the right border out a bit as well
on the rotational imbalance ... the map is alot like xelnaga fortress with expansion pattern to the middle rather than out radially. unlike xnf, you can expand in the other direction much easier, though, the distance is a bit further than going to the middle base.
and regarding the top ramp ... this is a problem with 3p maps that is very hard and very frustrating to come up with a solution. the problem is that the ramp direction forces you into certain base layouts - and specific positions on the map - if you want to try to be 100% balanced. i dont know how you can fix this on your map without significantly altering the nat
I've changed the bounds a bit and turned the top main's mineral formation to equalize in regards to air vulnerability. There is admittedly a lot more dead space in some places but there is now more room for maneuvering in previously cramped spaces. Top main will unfortunately have to live with a bit different ramp, ffe'ing to your nexus and all such things have been accounted for however and are equal between spawns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FUtHi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OUSvC.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bFSKQ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GPSgB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1w87q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RK0Dx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rdizx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HkfEUl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BlFHyl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SBVcGl.png)
