|
|
Strange map, thought it was for 4 players at first.
|
konadora
Singapore66060 Posts
|
Why is it not a 4 player map? Is there a reason to want to force those starting postions?
|
I might force more of a different style in this map. Now air dominance is really important in certain match-ups. Reminds me of Ragnarok actually, especially with the vertical spawns.
|
Seems kinda imbalanced TvP. I'd suggest diagonal positions to resolve that, or add unbuildable terrain between those bridges between the expos, and in front of the expos, otherwise I could just make a depo wall and safely push to the toss. Or is the gray area in one of the picasa pics unbuildable?
Also, that wall at natural is a bit too wide for the PvZ wall imo. 12p speedling runby <3.
|
wow nice mmap, and why no 4 player map lol?
|
The maps seems okay. Ah didnt do any bug checkings though.
On November 10 2012 03:50 quirinus wrote: Seems kinda imbalanced TvP. I'd suggest diagonal positions to resolve that, or add unbuildable terrain between those bridges between the expos, and in front of the expos, otherwise I could just make a depo wall and safely push to the toss. Or is the gray area in one of the picasa pics unbuildable?
Also, that wall at natural is a bit too wide for the PvZ wall imo. 12p speedling runby <3.
Yes ah suppose the grey area is unbuildable. As for the pvz, ah also like tight walls for protoss. Tighter than these. But ah play protoss mainly and ah like beeing safe at start . Perhaps other protoss's wont mind it.
|
Seems Terran favoured because of that easy to get third gas. And then you can split the map easily from there. 12 and 6 needs to be only one base that is further away from Terran, or those bases need to be mineral only.
Edit: Actually, it would probably be fine if the center was just more open.
|
United States9651 Posts
ground zero 2.0
very nice map! :D
|
Looks good to me! xD The name is familiar though, if only I could remember where I've seen it before.
|
@sheaRZerg sabas123 quirinus and vOdToasT My aim for this map was perfection in two ways; perfect gameplay and perfect balance.
|
Interesting ! I would like to test it.
|
|
It's a fun map, have played a few games on it.
|
I thought this was 4player with some very interesting asymmetric ramps. =\
|
It reminds me a map I used to play on some years ago. I'll try to find it, it don't think it was a pro map. Edit : oh I remember it was Memory Cell but yeah... no it is kinda different lol.
|
51133 Posts
|
THEORYCRAFTING TIME!
Here are some ideas, thrown idly around: One could interpret this as a forced-left-spawns map, so if you want that whole SC2 schebang of limiting the starting arrangements, try out a random trigger to switch the start-pos between left and right. Obviously you wouldn't change the current start locations, so in 1v1 etc it'd still be fine.
The first point I'd like to make is: expo choice . Here, there is none really. Now having both expo choice and dynamic control features a-la Destination completely spoils us because its so hard to perfect, but so delightful. But here, "yep, you've got your bases/respective halves of the map, that's that, macro up with lots of gas and throw shit at eachother". I mean, that's totally fine if you want to promote [Protoss q; ] that style of play on this map ... but I fear that brand would be all that's possible ]:
Which brings us to the second point: dynamic control. There's nothing to fight for. By controlling the expansions, you don't get any advantage over your opponent except more money. I dunno, I just don't feel the middle left expo is on the same level of desirability and value as the middle expo on Ride of Valkyeries or BlitzX for example. There's nothing to fight over, its much more of a macro focus. Maybe that's one of the reason 3-player-maps like Athena (II) and Longinus (II) (and many more too) were interesting because it was a ballance between map control, defending your main, and who could secure the contested rich expansion. Come to think of it, that dynamic is AWESOME, it stimulates your brain man, there's potential for something interesting "I wonder who's gonna get the cake?" ...
2v2 map resource count: 3 reasonably easy gas , 1min only, 1 far gas apiece. 2 contested. I dunno, I guess it isn't tooo easy for Z to grab the main as their 3rd ->4 (5) gas ftw.
Overall, try it out spawining in the Right Hand Side Mains, maybe that could alleviate concerns of overly near rush distances. You may have to swap the widths of the nat chokes. Also, is there no way to have a desirable, exposed expo somewhere along the central axis of the map (exposed exactly like in Othello - defended but at the same time cliffable)? No love for the mineral onlys?
Along the lines of making something worthwhile to fight over, could you maybe take the sort of symmetric expo layout from the top of Snowflake Sandwitch and apply it to the left, that is, open, with contestable expos. It just seems like a potential issue that, with a bit of map control (i.e. control two chokes) you get 6 gas, so make the far side more exposed and more volatiel.
Lemme know what you think, and please feel free smack my theorycrafting outta the air with your SCMDraft toolbrushes!
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
Seems a bit Protoss favored
|
|
|
Uhh who else would make it? Ofc he made it
Also we need more three player maps :D
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES48987 Posts
it really does look like Ground Zero now that the map image is loading.
|
I have uploaded Version 1.01 now. -Added a doodad in the naturals -Decoration
|
Take strength and keep it up. Simply doing SOMETHING keeps amateur mapping and its dreams alive.
|
10387 Posts
I think the concept of a 2p map on a 4p map architecture is quite fascinating. It brings all the interesting twists of a 2player map, opening-wise, but at the same time allows for 4p map style plays (such as 4base zvp, or ZvT third base held w/ 2 lurkers).
If anything, this map should play a lot like Neo/Ground Zero.
TvZ:+ Show Spoiler + For the most part, should play like a normal TvZ. Zergs will have the advantage of being able to scout Terran quickly, and a somewhat short air-rush distance and good terrain for Mutas will force Terrans to cut back on the greed. This is offset by the fact that the terrain is good for late-mech. The balance will vary widely depending on the level of the players.
ZvP:+ Show Spoiler + Again, should play like out like a PvZ on Ground Zero, except Protosses will have the initial scouting advantage and should always have the favorable build in the beginning. Not too out from the norm. I would expect less mid-game army heavy plays by Zerg, due to the terrain.
PvT:+ Show Spoiler + Terran should be fairly favored here. Timing pushes will be strong w/ constricted terrain and short rush distance, and 3 base 2-1 timing shouldn't be a problem for Terrans to play either. Center cliffs also give more viability to drop play, which would aid in defending. The advantage shouldn't be so overwhelming that Protoss can never win, but the Terran favor is there. Also, split-map PvT is super lame ;p
TvT:+ Show Spoiler + I don't have much to say in this matchup in general, other than the fact that those center high grounds seem like it'll make breaking defensive positions more difficult
ZvZ:+ Show Spoiler + 2 player map w/ fairly short air rush distance will always make for nice ZvZ, though I can't comment on what subtle impacts the map architecture has for the matchup
PvP:+ Show Spoiler + I see Protosses in general scouting a little later on this map, since you can get away with that on 2player maps. Gateways/robo openers should be more common than fast expansion openings (core double, DT double, gate double, etc). Should, again, play like Neo/Ground Zero.
|
really good map btw
played some games on it and its really cool
I wish it would be implemented to ICCUP..
|
On November 23 2012 05:29 Sinedd wrote:really good map btw played some games on it and its really cool I wish it would be implemented to ICCUP..
I'd play on it. I take back what I said about imbalance. It's probably fine. In any case, I don't know and I don't care. It seems fun, so fuck it.
|
Guys guys guys, the reason it's not a 4p map is because if you actually look at the ramps and nats, they are imbalanced. He chose the (better) pair that is equal. Durrrrrrrrrrrrr.
|
Good to see more BW map-makers. It's better than anything I could make!
Horizontal spawns are really silly, which I imagine is the reason for the weird forced spawns. It makes me think of a blizzard SC2 map for that reason, which isn't a good comparison
I'm not going to comment on balance because I have nothing useful to say on that topic, but it feels kind of empty and desolate. It could maybe use a little visual touch-up?
Why is one of the side bases snowed on and the other not? It doesn't make a difference gameplay wise, but it also doesn't really do anything visually. Were you trying to do a Dual Sight kind of thing, except in BW?
It's an interesting concept, to have a 2-player "4-player" map like this, and I'd be interested in possibly doing a tournament with it in the map pool down the line (I'd like to do a foreign maps tour), but there's something a little off about it, and I'm not quite sure what it is.
|
I have uploaded Version 1.02 now. -Tighter entrance to naturals (6 tiles) -Tighter entrance to third (6 tiles) -Added depleted minerals -Changed mineral formations at naturals, thirds, and 2nd naturals -Added neutral eggs at 3rds and 2nd naturals
Link to Gallery
North
South
Also, after uploading 1.01 I PMed a few people asking them for their opinions of the map. ArvickHero went ahead and posted his answer already. So, heres a few more anonymous opinions. 1. lol sorry, I been gone forever. Played my first game of BW just yesterday in a very very very long time. The map looks ok I guess. I wouldn't really know until a few games etc on it. I play Protoss. So I don't think I'd like it too much. Looks fun for Terran. Everythings fun for terran. I hate terran.
2. thanks for thinking of me. I guess my main impression is that, from a zerg perspective, terran and protoss can both get a pretty safe third, but as I look at it I don't think it would be too hard to counter attack in the lategame because their army would have to pull away from the zerg's main and natural to defend it and the lack of high ground makes it easier to get in there with zerglings and dark swarms. On top of that, zerg can take plenty of bases of his own, and since the middle is pretty open and flat, he should be ok to play a late game against either race.
3. I thought the nat distances looked extremely short (to the point that it might cause balance issues) and that the map was otherwise not doing anything too innovative! Sorry. If you know what type of mapper I was, you might take my comments with a grain of salt lol. I basically applauded anything that was really experimental and weird (at the cost of totally unknowable balance and difficulty to playtest).
|
GLHFGG!!!!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I like it a lot. Very well done Cardinal. I wonder, just how many hours have you spent working on this? (Nevermind the blood of Zerglings, sweat of Marines, and tears of Dragoons)
|
By the way, I did have permission to post the anonymous opinions above.
Now to finally answer some questions:
@bITt.mAN, thanks for the detailed post. Hmm I think we have different tastes when it comes to 1v1. Thats the simple answer basically. + Show Spoiler + THEORYCRAFTING TIME!
Here are some ideas, thrown idly around: One could interpret this as a forced-left-spawns map, so if you want that whole SC2 schebang of limiting the starting arrangements, try out a random trigger to switch the start-pos between left and right. Obviously you wouldn't change the current start locations, so in 1v1 etc it'd still be fine.
The first point I'd like to make is: expo choice . Here, there is none really. Now having both expo choice and dynamic control features a-la Destination completely spoils us because its so hard to perfect, but so delightful. But here, "yep, you've got your bases/respective halves of the map, that's that, macro up with lots of gas and throw shit at eachother". I mean, that's totally fine if you want to promote [Protoss q; ] that style of play on this map ... but I fear that brand would be all that's possible ]:
Which brings us to the second point: dynamic control. There's nothing to fight for. By controlling the expansions, you don't get any advantage over your opponent except more money. I dunno, I just don't feel the middle left expo is on the same level of desirability and value as the middle expo on Ride of Valkyeries or BlitzX for example. There's nothing to fight over, its much more of a macro focus. Maybe that's one of the reason 3-player-maps like Athena (II) and Longinus (II) (and many more too) were interesting because it was a ballance between map control, defending your main, and who could secure the contested rich expansion. Come to think of it, that dynamic is AWESOME, it stimulates your brain man, there's potential for something interesting "I wonder who's gonna get the cake?" ...
2v2 map resource count: 3 reasonably easy gas , 1min only, 1 far gas apiece. 2 contested. I dunno, I guess it isn't tooo easy for Z to grab the main as their 3rd ->4 (5) gas ftw.
Overall, try it out spawining in the Right Hand Side Mains, maybe that could alleviate concerns of overly near rush distances. You may have to swap the widths of the nat chokes. Also, is there no way to have a desirable, exposed expo somewhere along the central axis of the map (exposed exactly like in Othello - defended but at the same time cliffable)? No love for the mineral onlys?
Along the lines of making something worthwhile to fight over, could you maybe take the sort of symmetric expo layout from the top of Snowflake Sandwitch and apply it to the left, that is, open, with contestable expos. It just seems like a potential issue that, with a bit of map control (i.e. control two chokes) you get 6 gas, so make the far side more exposed and more volatiel.
Lemme know what you think, and please feel free smack my theorycrafting outta the air with your SCMDraft toolbrushes!
expo choice . Here, there is none really. I would agree, except for TvT where you may want to take the West Neutral as your 3rd, but if the opponent claims it successfully, you can still take the near 3rd and have a chance. But I think I get what youre saying. You feel the map is too 'clinical'. However, that is infact very important to achieve my aims.
alleviate concerns of overly near rush distances It takes longer to go from nat to nat by ground on this map than most (eg Fighting Spirit).
Thankyou for the post. I have drafted responses to your post several times since making this thread and everytime I delete it. Its very nice to be challenged. All I can say is that there are different ways of doing things. This map is the way it is for lots of reasons. But if you prefer the gameplay and balance found on 3 player maps/Othello/Destination then thats fine. Its just one map. I'll probably write a little guide to good and modern build orders that will work on this map and if I do then hopefully that will answer some of your questions more satisfactorily, but as I said already, I am finding it really hard to actually formulate a good reply to your post.
@krndandaman
P>Z easy to defend expansions that are close and have gas I agree with it all except the P>Z part.
P>T open terrain, unbuildable middle Again, I agree except the P>T part.
Z>T pro zerg: difficult to defend muta harass, lots of places to position lurkers, lots of gas expansions, and short rush distance I disagree with all of these.
@NeVeR
you made this? Yes and from scratch, I didnt use a map unprotector if thats what you mean.
@BLinD-RawR
it really does look like Ground Zero now that the map image is loading. Yeah I mean, its obviously based on Ground Zero.
@vOdToasT
It seems fun, so fuck it. Hahah brilliant. Hope you enjoy.
@Ribbon
there's something a little off about it, and I'm not quite sure what it is. No worries, I am not a very experienced map maker, but do check out broodwarmaps.net if you have some spare time, theres some real gems in the database there made by much better map makers.
@3FFA
just how many hours have you spent working on this? This was my first time using the ice tileset so that adds alot of time to familiarise yourself with it. Also, there is no unbuildable dirt so you have to use alot of copy pasting. Having made this map, I now have some palletes set up ready for any future ice maps which will help cut down time. Rather embarrassingly, it took 5 hours just to get the damn pictures working properly. I didnt have experience with image editing, conversion, hosting sites, forums etc. Had to re do them, and put on a different site. I was pretty hungover too haha. I mostly just lurk on websites
|
United States9651 Posts
wat are the random minerals for? im sorry if i didnt see it before ><
|
|
|
|