|
Acacius: So I still have not seen a 5 player map out there for sc2 (there might be a couple, but I have looked 4 them, and have failed to find them), 5 player maps where never common any way even in the BW days (there are a couple of reasons for this, but one of them is like in 3 player maps the symmetry tool is completely useless because practically all the map is done by hand ). Thus I decided to give you a treat and make a 5 player map all 4 you! Enjoy!
MAP IS PUBLISHED IN: NOT YET
MAP IS NOT YET FINISHED: THE HIGH GROUND ON TOP OF NATS WILL BE UNWALKABLE Map is still unfinished I have not added all the deco or doodads to make any possible edits easier to make
Map Size (Playable) 152 x 152
OVERVIEW:
90º OVERVIEW:
ANALYSER:
ABOUT THE MAP:
+ Show Spoiler +(Map is intended for 1vs1, but 2v2 could also be an option)Like I said most important, map is still in beta stage. Also don't dismiss the concept of a 5 player map just because it is a 5 player, this is a 5 map back in BW that was played in the professional scene. Other than the fact it's a 5 player map, the layout is pretty straight up and self explanatory, you have a high high ground main in2 a high ground nat, with a high ground 3rd that has its ramp blocked by a destructible rock. Another interesting thing about the map is that there is a middle gold base (taking this expo will be risky, and hard to secure but if you manage to hold it 4 long enough it will give you a very sweet edge) Map still unfinished, deco, doodads, and fixes like 3 3 pylon block on main ramp will be fixed later. Also there is a small path between low ground fog and the water, this is big enough to let units such as workers go through, but no worries these paths will be closed with blocking doodads.
Feel free to post your opinion, and give any tips, advice and/or recommendations!
|
your Country52793 Posts
I don't really see a whole lot of interesting stuff here. It's a decent map, I guess. I may have missed it but are close positions enabled? Could be positionally imbalanced
|
Am I cross eyed or is the map unsymmetrical?
The 4 o clock base looks further away than the other ones while 9 and 12 o clock seem the closest.
The other two look like they're in between.
Also I don't see a zerg winning a single non ZvZ on this map because where should I ever get a third base?
|
So you have to break the rocks to take a third? How are ever supposed to take a third as Zerg then? Also the space in front of the 7/8 o'clock natural seems less wide than the other naturals. That could be a problem I guess. Overall I feel it is too choky because too small. I believe all the 3p maps are bigger than 152x152, so a 5p map should be even bigger. (look at this one : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/459723-5-cj-biome)
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 28 2014 03:51 The_Templar wrote: I don't really see a whole lot of interesting stuff here. It's a decent map, I guess. I may have missed it but are close positions enabled? Could be positionally imbalanced sad u dont like it, but no all positions are possible, and yeah there might be some small positional imba, but imo its minimal, just the same as if map was a rotational symmetric map.
+ Show Spoiler +On October 28 2014 04:01 TrumpetWilli wrote: Am I cross eyed or is the map unsymmetrical? The 4 o clock base looks further away than the other ones while 9 and 12 o clock seem the closest. The other two look like they're in between. Also I don't see a zerg winning a single non ZvZ on this map because where should I ever get a third base? Yeah u are right, symmetry now that u mention it looks a bit off, I will move things around a bit 2 see what I can do. As for the zerg thing, u really think Z are doomed on the map just because of the not so easy 3rd? Would removing the rocks fix that problem?
+ Show Spoiler +On October 28 2014 04:03 OtherWorld wrote:So you have to break the rocks to take a third? How are ever supposed to take a third as Zerg then? Also the space in front of the 7/8 o'clock natural seems less wide than the other naturals. That could be a problem I guess. Overall I feel it is too choky because too small. I believe all the 3p maps are bigger than 152x152, so a 5p map should be even bigger. (look at this one : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/459723-5-cj-biome) Out with the rocks fix? As for the nat I will see what i can do. The map size; yeah 3 maps are a but bigger usually, but if u playing 1v1, and there are 1v1 maps considerably smaller than this, why should it be a problem? only difference are the start locations. (question) And i dont like to big a maps that much BTW ty 4 the 5 map link, looks like a solid map
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 28 2014 04:01 TrumpetWilli wrote: Am I cross eyed or is the map unsymmetrical? The 4 o clock base looks further away than the other ones while 9 and 12 o clock seem the closest. The other two look like they're in between. Also I don't see a zerg winning a single non ZvZ on this map because where should I ever get a third base?
Yeah u are right, symmetry now that u mention it looks a bit off, I will move things around a bit 2 see what I can do. As for the zerg thing, u really think Z are doomed on the map just because of the not so easy 3rd? Would removing the rocks fix that problem?
Even without the rocks, the 3rd is really really far away from the other bases. And if you think further, taking a fourth base is plain impossible i think :D
So if you really want to turn this into a 1v1 Map which is playable in the current meta you you should in my opinion make the map a bit bigger and build in a own fourth base for every spawning location
Edit:
Maybe you can connect the natural to the Base behind the rocks (and then leave the rocks untouched of course) so this is the usual 3rd location. (The Red square)
And then you could rework the area in the red circle, maybe just make the main a little bit smaller and increase the highground at the base with the rocks, moving the rocks a bit into the direction of the blue arrow. But you would need to disable spawning close then.
Just my thoughts though, I'm not really into map analysis
|
I agree with TrumpetWilli. I also think that making a 5p map is very difficult, and is even more difficult if you don't take a circle as a basis for your symmetry (see CJ Biome). I'm really not a fan of 5p maps in general though.
|
I don't see the point of 5p maps.
|
On October 28 2014 21:57 TrumpetWilli wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 28 2014 04:01 TrumpetWilli wrote: Am I cross eyed or is the map unsymmetrical? The 4 o clock base looks further away than the other ones while 9 and 12 o clock seem the closest. The other two look like they're in between. Also I don't see a zerg winning a single non ZvZ on this map because where should I ever get a third base? Show nested quote + Yeah u are right, symmetry now that u mention it looks a bit off, I will move things around a bit 2 see what I can do. As for the zerg thing, u really think Z are doomed on the map just because of the not so easy 3rd? Would removing the rocks fix that problem?
Even without the rocks, the 3rd is really really far away from the other bases. And if you think further, taking a fourth base is plain impossible i think :D So if you really want to turn this into a 1v1 Map which is playable in the current meta you you should in my opinion make the map a bit bigger and build in a own fourth base for every spawning location Edit: Maybe you can connect the natural to the Base behind the rocks (and then leave the rocks untouched of course) so this is the usual 3rd location. (The Red square) And then you could rework the area in the red circle, maybe just make the main a little bit smaller and increase the highground at the base with the rocks, moving the rocks a bit into the direction of the blue arrow. But you would need to disable spawning close then. Just my thoughts though, I'm not really into map analysis
The bridge would fix the third issue in some cases, but make it impossible to secure a 3rd for the player in position 1 vs player in position 2.
|
I like TrumpetWilli's idea; it was the first thing I noticed.
Also is it just the proportions, or does the 4 o'clock main look especially vulnerable for proxies? Also that sort of peak in the 1 o'clock to some extent.
|
This map just has a lot of problems if it's intended to be seen as a competitive melee map. For starters, is it all spawns? The 9 to 11 nat2nat looks extremely short. Pure open center designs don't function nearly as well as or similarly to how they did in BW. I'd strongly consider revising with a different center design than winner gold base.
|
On October 29 2014 09:54 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I like TrumpetWilli's idea; it was the first thing I noticed.
Also is it just the proportions, or does the 4 o'clock main look especially vulnerable for proxies? Also that sort of peak in the 1 o'clock to some extent.
They all have space for proxy, but yes maybe those bases are a bit 2 much.
On October 29 2014 11:08 EatThePath wrote: This map just has a lot of problems if it's intended to be seen as a competitive melee map. For starters, is it all spawns? The 9 to 11 nat2nat looks extremely short. Pure open center designs don't function nearly as well as or similarly to how they did in BW. I'd strongly consider revising with a different center design than winner gold base.
Yeah il fix distances between those bases, as for a different middle, il see what i can come up with what do u propose?
il post some options in images
|
I really like the position of the third.
|
On October 29 2014 08:10 Mistakes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2014 21:57 TrumpetWilli wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 28 2014 04:01 TrumpetWilli wrote: Am I cross eyed or is the map unsymmetrical? The 4 o clock base looks further away than the other ones while 9 and 12 o clock seem the closest. The other two look like they're in between. Also I don't see a zerg winning a single non ZvZ on this map because where should I ever get a third base? Yeah u are right, symmetry now that u mention it looks a bit off, I will move things around a bit 2 see what I can do. As for the zerg thing, u really think Z are doomed on the map just because of the not so easy 3rd? Would removing the rocks fix that problem?
Even without the rocks, the 3rd is really really far away from the other bases. And if you think further, taking a fourth base is plain impossible i think :D So if you really want to turn this into a 1v1 Map which is playable in the current meta you you should in my opinion make the map a bit bigger and build in a own fourth base for every spawning location Edit: Maybe you can connect the natural to the Base behind the rocks (and then leave the rocks untouched of course) so this is the usual 3rd location. (The Red square) And then you could rework the area in the red circle, maybe just make the main a little bit smaller and increase the highground at the base with the rocks, moving the rocks a bit into the direction of the blue arrow. But you would need to disable spawning close then. Just my thoughts though, I'm not really into map analysis The bridge would fix the third issue in some cases, but make it impossible to secure a 3rd for the player in position 1 vs player in position 2.
If you take a quick look at my second last sentence: "But you would need to disable spawning close then"
So if the bases are 1, 2 and clockwise 3, 4 & 5 - if you spawn on 1 your opponent could only spawn on 3 or 4
|
yeah, but I think that would be really confusing for players, I want to solve the problems without messing with start locations, specially with a 5 map. But I do think, the symmetry and the 3rd should b fixed. I think I have an idea on how 2 do this
|
the 2 o'clock base is a nope, nobody likes non diagonal nat ramps
|
yeah, that 2 o clock nat is a no no.
the lack of accessible 3rds and 4ths is a complete no no.
The I WIN YOU LOSE gold in the middle is a complete no no. Never do that. If one player can go up in resources, you should allow the other player to have some viable recourse other than simply try and all in. the game ends boringly and predictably. also if a player has a slight lead and takes the gold, it typically ends the game. its terrible design.
|
On October 30 2014 17:27 Isarios wrote: yeah, that 2 o clock nat is a no no.
the lack of accessible 3rds and 4ths is a complete no no.
The I WIN YOU LOSE gold in the middle is a complete no no. Never do that. If one player can go up in resources, you should allow the other player to have some viable recourse other than simply try and all in. the game ends boringly and predictably. also if a player has a slight lead and takes the gold, it typically ends the game. its terrible design.
Ye I agree with the natural ramp, you just can't wall there properly.
The accessibility of the 3rd/4th already got mentioned but I don't think the middle base is a "I WIN YOU LOSE"...
It's just to wide open to be a free-win base in my opinion. But well, once he updated the map we can see how it's looking
|
I actually like this type of symmetry better than the circular style.
|
|
|
|