EPTAs far as RTS games and games in general go. Blizzard games aren't known to be lookers.
Thoughts on Mapping and TLMC #2 - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
As far as RTS games and games in general go. Blizzard games aren't known to be lookers. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
Aesthetic design is about clarity and intrigue, which Blizzard has in spades. | ||
|
sCnDiamond
Germany340 Posts
On July 11 2013 02:04 RFDaemoniac wrote: For the viewers yes, but not for the judges. They should only care in terms of gameplay. If the maps is promising in that regard, you can still make it look good. Remember Havens Lagoon? It's aesthetics were sub-par when it was released, but the concept behind the map was cool enough to give it a shot nonetheless.aesthetics are a first impression for a map. They are incredibly important to viewers and therefore discounting a map with poor aesthetics is entirely reasonable. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
In general you would save mapmakers a lot of time.. at least mapmakers like me, who get joy out of this process by hammering out concepts/layouts, not doing aesthetics. Which I think is the great majority. For instance, if you find out your layout didn't win, you save a lot of time not doing the aesthetics. Whereas if you find out you've won, you are really inspired to do your very best on aesthetics (and possibly you can get someone to help you, too). But I do not deny good aesthetics are important to the SC2 viewing experience, especially the casual viewing experience. | ||
monk
United States8476 Posts
While we were judging, we weren't aware of who made any of the maps. If a map was relatively barren, there was no way we could have been confident that it would have good aesthetics by the end of the process if it were picked. We also weren't sure of how much additional time people would have between the selection process and the TLOpen to touch up the maps. For example, even with the finalists we picked, some mappers had very little time to work on their maps in between. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
On July 11 2013 04:51 Fatam wrote: I am definitely in the camp of: 1) judge layouts 2) if a map wins, do or improve the aesthetics. In general you would save mapmakers a lot of time.. at least mapmakers like me, who get joy out of this process by hammering out concepts/layouts, not doing aesthetics. Which I think is the great majority. For instance, if you find out your layout didn't win, you save a lot of time not doing the aesthetics. Whereas if you find out you've won, you are really inspired to do your very best on aesthetics (and possibly you can get someone to help you, too). But I do not deny good aesthetics are important to the SC2 viewing experience, especially the casual viewing experience. Shit Fatam, let's work together. You supply me layouts, I'll do aesthetics! Whenever I make layouts It takes for forever to find something I actually like, but when I do find something I like I always have a blast creating the art of the map. I probably have thousands of 64x64 (or 72x72) layouts that I just have no interest in ever finishing because I think they're trash lol. | ||
|
monk
United States8476 Posts
On July 11 2013 05:25 SidianTheBard wrote: Shit Fatam, let's work together. You supply me layouts, I'll do aesthetics! Whenever I make layouts It takes for forever to find something I actually like, but when I do find something I like I always have a blast creating the art of the map. I probably have thousands of 64x64 (or 72x72) layouts that I just have no interest in ever finishing because I think they're trash lol. Make outsider! | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
But 3p maps are such a pain in the ass >.< I've only completed 1 three player map ever and I'm pretty sure it was during the 3p only MotM tournament. Need to get Timmay in here, I swear that's all he does. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1298 Posts
On July 11 2013 05:37 SidianTheBard wrote: But 3p maps are such a pain in the ass >.< I've only completed 1 three player map ever and I'm pretty sure it was during the 3p only MotM tournament. Need to get Timmay in here, I swear that's all he does. I think I can help making the layout for it =) edit: btw, should I make a full replica or make some changes? | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
Thoughts on my attempt? either for me or for others who are going to attempt outsider? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=364827¤tpage=64#1275 | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1298 Posts
On July 11 2013 05:30 monk wrote: Make outsider! layout somewhat done + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On July 11 2013 05:22 monk wrote: How can this be if some of the maps submitted were already well known before the contest begun?This is how I personally saw it: While we were judging, we weren't aware of who made any of the maps. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
The goal imo is not to copy as closely as possible from BroodWar. The engine is different, the mechanics are different. An in-base gasless expansion is much less valuable in SC2 than it was in BW. The goal is maintain the spirit and strategy of the map. The rush distances look to be about 40 seconds, is that accurate? That's a little too short for rush strategies to be defended and then you barely get to see the map played at all. | ||
|
jon osterman
71 Posts
ps: why is the tlmc thread not on custom subforum? | ||
|
monk
United States8476 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On July 11 2013 07:42 RFDaemoniac wrote: An inbase gasless expo is less valuable because no strategies currently exist that make use of it but I can practically guarantee you that if a KeSPA team is supposed to practice for that map on proleague the coaches and teams will come together and invent an ingenious strategy which takes full advantage of it.The goal imo is not to copy as closely as possible from BroodWar. The engine is different, the mechanics are different. An in-base gasless expansion is much less valuable in SC2 than it was in BW. The goal is maintain the spirit and strategy of the map. The rush distances look to be about 40 seconds, is that accurate? That's a little too short for rush strategies to be defended and then you barely get to see the map played at all. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12021 Posts
On October 28 2013 16:34 SiskosGoatee wrote: An inbase gasless expo is less valuable because no strategies currently exist that make use of it but I can practically guarantee you that if a KeSPA team is supposed to practice for that map on proleague the coaches and teams will come together and invent an ingenious strategy which takes full advantage of it. Also I've never understood why they're "useless" because two, well three or four of the main used units cost only minerals. Then you've got the buildings that produce them which are also just minerals. You've got Hatcheries, Gateways and Barracks, the three main buildings then you have zerglings, zealots and marines. All of which cost minerals. Also with a bigger mineral income you can expand quicker. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
That said, I'm pretty sure there exist some pretty solid heavy marine/zealot/zergling strategies that a KeSPA team can refine. In the current mid-lategame ZvT both Z and T tend to be mineral starved with a considerable gas bank, I don't think either race would say no to being able to put a macro hatch at some juicy minerals slash float their main over to some free minerals. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n2mXn7E.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/6/63/200_Outsider.jpg)
