I also just realized it only had four bases per player, wow.
Better than Blizzard Map Challenge - Page 6
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
I also just realized it only had four bases per player, wow. | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
On June 21 2013 14:17 EatThePath wrote: I really think blistering sands remakes should have a backdoor. Otherwise what's the point, the rest of the layout on that map is just bad too and you have to do so much just to make it playable. I tend to agree with this statement. | ||
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
| ||
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
i did not provide the concept explanation in my post yesterday, but here it is. Features - there is a backdoor to the nat which is not that far away for comitted attacks - there is a very harassable third that is easily accessed from all four directions, the other third added in the position of the main backdoor is even more open for straight forward attacks. - the tower does not provide vision for units without air support - with all rocks taken down five or even four bases are not so easily kept - LoSBs in the long end of the main for drops - big main cliffs beiing walkable almost everywhere, big main invites drops, sneaky pylon, nydus, etc Concept What was especially strong in Blistering Sand's concept is the main backdoor. Consequently build-up was slow and you would never transfer easily into a macro game, because you just had to provide defense. Hence games developed slower and played out more aggressively than on other maps. I did not want to keep the main backdoor (which was pretty much the shortest path) to direct these attacks along this one axis, but i wanted to keep the idea of strong aggressive openings and timing attacks. In midgame we can expect constant denial of fourths or even thirds. Answer to all the people who think that map is not valid in this contest: you do not have to vote for it, but i think the map plays out closely enough in the style of blistering without being a remake. The contest asks for better than blizzard, not remake and balance their maps. Hence i took the strong early to mid game as a guideline and transformed the map as i thought it is needed. I don't care too much in case the map is disqualified ^^ but it would be a pitty because i am quite sure it provides similar games within hots gameplay and an overall more grown up game. edit: Semmo brought this up: take main hugging third and never move + win. This is pretty much why you will have aaggression. You cannot let the other player have the third so easily and the distance is short enough to be able to attack/disturb that base long enough. Maybe i should add a blizzard style rock (; | ||
chuky500
France473 Posts
If the poll makes you choose between good and too different why not add choices like "too similar" or "corresponds to a metagame from 2 years ago". The contest is about judging maps there's no need to add side questions within the same poll. | ||
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
Immortal Depths Timetwister22 Aesthetics + Show Spoiler + Remake of Xel'naga Caverns: + Show Spoiler + Original playable size: 124x124 Immortal Depths playable size: 124x140 All of the high ground pods in the middle by the golds and watchtowers are pathable. The high ground by the natural is not pathable. | ||
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
| ||
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
| ||
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
Mondscheinsonate SE Size:128, 134 Remake of XNC. Size: 140x124 | ||
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
Inimic
Canada153 Posts
| ||
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
Kulas Glen by RFDaemoniac Remake of Kulas Ravine. + Show Spoiler + Original playable size: 140x136 Kulas Glen playable size: 148x148 Album of additional images+ Show Spoiler + Main/nat/in-base third setup with natural wall-off. Natural with overlooking high-ground and rocked path between horizontal spawns. Other third and area between vertical spawns Center and watchtowers Aesthetics are kinda crap... but I think I'm in that period where I'm getting worse before I improve. Edit to include playable bounds and original image. I hope it's not too late. | ||
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
Grave King Hill by RFDaemoniac Remake of Burial Grounds. + Show Spoiler + Original playable size: 132 x 132 Grave King Hill playable size: 132 x 136 Album of additional images+ Show Spoiler + Main with choke wall-off Natural with Nexus wall-off Corner third with overlooking highround Backdoor third Forward/open third Gold base Center The back door to the main has two rocks stacked, but slightly offset so that you can see both of them. Edit: Included necessary submission info. Edit 2: Some more info on my thoughts behind the changes. I wanted the uphill to be important when moving out, in order to allow a contain, but not important when defending. Defending on the low ground feels terrible, even without a real high ground mechanic. I therefore pushed the highground a little farther away from the natural. This made the middle ground area quite small, so I found an area where I could make it bigger, by bringing it over the corner of the main. I decided to keep the two entrance main instead of converting it to a standard ramp down/9 choke because I like seeing aggressive games. I put rocks at the natural to help you wall and the pit in the natural helps create some interesting army movement for the attacker. I gave the back door two rocks instead of one in order to mitigate things like hydra pushes against air toss. While the main entrance is wall able with only 2 buildings, it might be slightly too big to stop early pushes in TvP from both sides, in which case I'd make it smaller and put flat rocks on it. There are multiple choices for a third. The two on the high ground are harassable, but the one in the corner is a little more choked, making it easier to defend for protoss or a mech terran. However, as a trade off for being more choked it is farther from your main/natural, forcing you to split your army well. The backdoor third isn't particularly interesting except for its proximity to the gold base. I wanted to encourage players to be able to expand in either direction. I also wanted it to be possible for each player to hold a gold base, perhaps at the sacrifice of easy map control. The watch towers help make the counter-clockwise gold base takable, as well as encouraging air units to move through the middle where they have to pay attention to what's underneath them. | ||
FlyingBeer
United States262 Posts
On June 21 2013 16:38 Samro225am wrote: i think one should consider how a map plays like. not what the layout looks like. i did not provide the concept explanation in my post yesterday, but here it is. Features - there is a backdoor to the nat which is not that far away for comitted attacks - there is a very harassable third that is easily accessed from all four directions, the other third added in the position of the main backdoor is even more open for straight forward attacks. - the tower does not provide vision for units without air support - with all rocks taken down five or even four bases are not so easily kept - LoSBs in the long end of the main for drops - big main cliffs beiing walkable almost everywhere, big main invites drops, sneaky pylon, nydus, etc Concept What was especially strong in Blistering Sand's concept is the main backdoor. Consequently build-up was slow and you would never transfer easily into a macro game, because you just had to provide defense. Hence games developed slower and played out more aggressively than on other maps. I did not want to keep the main backdoor (which was pretty much the shortest path) to direct these attacks along this one axis, but i wanted to keep the idea of strong aggressive openings and timing attacks. In midgame we can expect constant denial of fourths or even thirds. Answer to all the people who think that map is not valid in this contest: you do not have to vote for it, but i think the map plays out closely enough in the style of blistering without being a remake. The contest asks for better than blizzard, not remake and balance their maps. Hence i took the strong early to mid game as a guideline and transformed the map as i thought it is needed. I don't care too much in case the map is disqualified ^^ but it would be a pitty because i am quite sure it provides similar games within hots gameplay and an overall more grown up game. edit: Semmo brought this up: take main hugging third and never move + win. This is pretty much why you will have aaggression. You cannot let the other player have the third so easily and the distance is short enough to be able to attack/disturb that base long enough. Maybe i should add a blizzard style rock (; Your map is one of my favorites partly because it's well done, but also because you took the time to write this up. I was hoping to read more of the different map designers' insights into how they thought it best to improve on a map's design, but most are just being thrown up with very little comment. | ||
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
| ||
meatpudding
Australia520 Posts
Based on Xel'Naga Caverns 140 x 124 Excavation Site by meatpudding Playable area 156 x 124 Angled + Show Spoiler + Close up base and natural + Show Spoiler + Close up third, which is the natural from the original + Show Spoiler + 4th base with ramp and pathing added around the side + Show Spoiler + Another pic of the 3 base setup + Show Spoiler + And hi res overview + Show Spoiler + Oh and I was going to submit a scrap station remake but haven't finished it | ||
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
Debris Station: Based on Debris fields: Original (116x140) + Show Spoiler + Remake (172x172) + Show Spoiler + So i always felt that island maps was missing in SC2 so since i noticed Blizzard had made one i figured i could improve it to the standards of todays meta game. I might have gone a tad overboard through, but this is my first complete SC2 map. I have done a ton of map analysis through and from that i determened a few conditions required for a balanced Island map. 1. Must be 4 player 2. Must be huge 3. Must have 2 bases in main 4. Ideally Mirrored symmentry. The 3 first of those conditions is accomplished with this remake through changing it to mirrored Symmentry would probably alter too much for this competitions conditions. As this is my first map through, it is very simple in terms of terrain and also very light on doodads. Some extra Pics: + Show Spoiler + The Main Center Island Sorry for being an hour late through had issues with the pictures. | ||
turtles
Australia360 Posts
Basically I...
imgur.com is messing up for me at the moment so I submit the previous screenshots I had. whole map + Show Spoiler + angled overview pathing close ups + Show Spoiler + in the swamp looking from South base to East base Xel'naga tower in the centre To get an idea of the size here is a comparisson with metalopolis. Remember, close spawns are disabled but I included it anyway to get an idea of size. close spawn -Bel'Shir swamp: 121.4 -metalopolis: 107.7 -difference: +12% close air: -Bel'Shir swamp: 148.3 -metalopolis: 135.5 -difference: +9% cross spawn: -Bel'Shir swamp:170.3 -metalopolis: 159.1 -difference: +7% I hope you like it. It was the first map I ever made. I touched it up a bit for this competition though. Including making the outside prettier, changing the water colours to match better, flattening the terrain more and fixing the pathing problems in the mains. EDIT: Uploaded as Bel'Shir swamp on the NA and EU region for those wanting to try it | ||
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On June 24 2013 19:15 Timetwister22 wrote: Well, I don't know what the original size of some Blizzard maps is..Looking through some of these submission threads, many are missing important info that will be needed as per the rules. I will include things such as original map size and pic vs the new size and pic for voting. If you don't include all your info in your threads, I will not hunt you down to find such info. I'll just simply not include your map in the voting. | ||
| ||