Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (74 users)
Active: 6948 users | |
|
| Gfire United States. June 03 2012 01:57. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
Gfire's Map Thread
Latest Update: July 27, 2012
Map Concepts
I'm posting these to ask opinions of which I should work on in the future.
Poll: Which Map Should I Work On?Concept 5 (4) 50% Concept 2 (2) 25% Concept 3 (2) 25% Concept 1 (0) 0% Concept 4 (0) 0% 8 total votes Your vote: Which Map Should I Work On? (Vote): Concept 1
(Vote): Concept 2
(Vote): Concept 3
(Vote): Concept 4
(Vote): Concept 5
In Progress
These are maps that are currently ongoing projects.
Full Maps
These are complete or semi-complete maps which I'm not actively trying to change without testing.
Other Maps
Misc.
Last edit: 2012-07-28 02:51:52 |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| Reptilia Chile. June 03 2012 03:10. Posts 838 | Profile # |
Concept 1 by far is the best in my opinion but it need some tweaks.
(i dislike the xel'naga and the empty low ground near base) |
| | The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources |
|
|
| -NegativeZero- United States. June 03 2012 03:28. Posts 587 | Profile # |
| Concept 1 is very interesting and very BW-esque, since the expansions are more spread out but also more easily defendable. Also, I love the use of single-wide ramps and other narrow chokes throughout the map, this could help a lot with incorporating more positional defenses and increasing defender's advantage. |
| |
|
|
| a176 Canada. June 03 2012 04:37. Posts 5431 | Profile Blog # |
one thing i notice is you're trying to fill the terrain with ramps, elevated terrain/holes, etc. there's nothing intrinsically bad with this, but these features need to be made useful. for example, concept 2, what did you envision the use for those elevated pieces of terrain? as a random viewer of this map, i would say it'd be good to set up a siege line or something there. but then i would actually never engage any enemy (t/p) who has this position because its far too hard, and thusly it just becomes kind of a wasted feature. even for concept 4, there are two skinny ramps leading to that elevated terrain that no one would ever use to go up. try to use atleast 2-width ramps for terrain ramps, like what you did with golden valley.
i would say to continue work on map 1. it probably needs a rethinking of the base layout (spacing, an extra base maybe). but i love the terrain going around the map. |
| |
|
| Gfire United States. June 03 2012 04:58. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
On June 03 2012 03:10 Reptilia wrote:
Concept 1 by far is the best in my opinion but it need some tweaks.
(i dislike the xel'naga and the empty low ground near base)
Maybe I'll add a half base to the low ground, which would add some weight to that area so I could remove the watchtower as well.
On June 03 2012 03:28 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Concept 1 is very interesting and very BW-esque, since the expansions are more spread out but also more easily defendable. Also, I love the use of single-wide ramps and other narrow chokes throughout the map, this could help a lot with incorporating more positional defenses and increasing defender's advantage.
Thanks. That's what I was going for.
On June 03 2012 03:54 moskonia wrote:
1st concept - taking the 5th would be VERY hard, other then that it seems very cool, lots of chokes and high ground usage but still pretty open.
Yeah, the idea would be that you expand more slowly than on some maps so four bases should last long enough for most games, but the fifth is there if you ever really need it.
2nd concept - as a Protoss I don't like it  , it is very open and the 4th is so far from the 3rd if you don't take the middle base (almost impossible for P and Z).
Not sure if it's as extreme as you say... The corner base is quite far from the opponent, and the forward base is in a pretty strong position with that high ground right there. I'd hope it would be a bit like the forward base on Daybreak, where it gets taken by all races a fair bit, as well as with an Orbital from Terran sometimes.
3rd concept - seems huge, but after a 2nd look it looks very original and interesting, even though there is sure to be positional imbalance I hope you will work it out 
It's my first 3p and I'm not entirely sure if it was a success. The analyzer seems to think it's positionally balanced in terms of resource influence and openness, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Mostly the spacing is about the same, but it's not as perfect as I would have likes. I might take the concept and use it for a 2p map.
It's not very original at all, though, it's based on Bifrost from BW.
4th - concept - so many rocks :O it looks really good though, how many buildings does it take to block the choke of the nat? I think this is the map you should work on, it reminds me of Tal'darim altar a bit, but much better Idea: how about in the middle making the center of it an even higher ground? just an idea.
The choke of the nat is standard 3 buildings. Your third one also seals up not only the ramp but also the bit between the ramp and the rock.
I don't think I could do a double-high center. It sounds cool, but there's not really room to have that many ramps and keep it as open as I'd like... Maybe I could get it to work, though.
On June 03 2012 04:37 a176 wrote:
one thing i notice is you're trying to fill the terrain with ramps, elevated terrain/holes, etc. there's nothing intrinsically bad with this, but these features need to be made useful. for example, concept 2, what did you envision the use for those elevated pieces of terrain? as a random viewer of this map, i would say it'd be good to set up a siege line or something there. but then i would actually never engage any enemy (t/p) who has this position because its far too hard, and thusly it just becomes kind of a wasted feature. even for concept 4, there are two skinny ramps leading to that elevated terrain that no one would ever use to go up. try to use atleast 2-width ramps for terrain ramps, like what you did with golden valley.
I was trying to "be liberal with forward chokes" as Barrin put it. On one hand, the inability to attack those places does, perhaps, increase passivity which isn't a great thing. The hope would be that it brings some more positional play. Since you can lock down a place like that so easily, it allows you to create a forward defensive position which you can use as a bit of a pivot point for your army. You can more easily move your army around the map to do different things if you can easily hold that point with a smaller number of units. It hopefully would only discourage straight-up attacking, which should encourage more harassment and positional movements, in theory.
There not directly useful, in the sense that you don't actually do things on them, but because you can defend them easily, it can open more doors for you. It encourages players to come up with other things to do to gain an advantage besides attack into a position, so you can't always attack just because you have a larger army, and it also means you can defend more easily so you can leave a smaller army there and use your other units for other things, which increases your options. It's generally about increasing defenders advantage.
It's experimental, though. It's possible it doesn't actually work as I would intend.
i would say to continue work on map 1. it probably needs a rethinking of the base layout (spacing, an extra base maybe). but i love the terrain going around the map.
Yeah, I'm trying to think of just what to do with it... |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| monitor United States. June 03 2012 05:14. Posts 2280 | Profile Blog # |
| Dude these are awesome. I love them!! |
| | Starcraft 2 Mapmaker for TPW || Author of Korhal Compound |
|
|
| a176 Canada. June 03 2012 05:34. Posts 5431 | Profile Blog # |
| nothing wrong with creating chokes around the map, but in particular, 1-width ramps are not the best option you can see in other maps like, cloud kingdom for example, you can use destructibles to create a kind of 'temporary' 1-width ramp for use in early game, which can then be destroyed to widen it to 2-width for larger, late game armies. Last edit: 2012-06-03 05:35:38 |
| |
|
| monitor United States. June 03 2012 06:50. Posts 2280 | Profile Blog # |
I like #1 and #4. For #1 though, I'd remove some of the ramps and make the middle a little bit simpler.
#3 needs some work because the middle is gigantic and pretty positionally imbalanced. You could make the map like 2/3 of the current size and make the outer ring more like outsider if you want to try to make it competitive.
#2 has some awesome ideas but I don't like how limited the pathing is- the natural really makes the center quite small. I don't know any way to fix this, but I think gameplay will be 1-dimensional. |
| | Starcraft 2 Mapmaker for TPW || Author of Korhal Compound |
|
|
 Aunvilgod June 03 2012 22:47. Posts 2031 | Profile # |
#1 is solid design, it will definately become a nice playable map.
The other concepts look very experimental. I would suggest to work on #1 and one of the other three at the same time so you have one solid project and one experiment. |
| |
|
| TheFish7 United States. June 04 2012 04:17. Posts 1220 | Profile # |
I agree 100% with what monitor said,
It was also between #1 and #4 for me, but I picked #4 primarily because its something a bit different from what we've seen before, but I think alot of the concepts used could work out really well. The map reminds me of entombed valley except its about 1,000% more interesting- loving the use of rocks and highground. |
| |
|
| Ragoo Germany. June 04 2012 04:54. Posts 2207 | Profile # |
| 1 and 2 have potential with some changes. 3 doesn't really make sense position-wise and 4 is 4p mirrored and 4p mirrored fucking sucks! |
| | Member of TPW mapmaking team/// twitter.com/Ragoo_ /// "goody represents border between explainable reason and supernatural" Cloud |
|
|
| Gfire United States. June 04 2012 05:58. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
| 4 is actually rotational, not reflected. Probably unnecessarily symmetrical, though. The concept has very little positional variety, which means balance but perhaps boringness, much like Golden Valley. I don't have much experience with 4p maps so I've been conservative with positional balance thus far. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| Gfire United States. June 08 2012 13:17. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
I updated the map thread. I have a new concept. The previous concept 4 which I called "necropolis" has been worked on and is now in the full maps section, and the previous concept 1 is now is a work in progress section. I'm still not entirely sure what to do with that one, or if I'm happy with it.
I'll probably create a thread for Necropolis at some point. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| moskonia Israel. June 11 2012 08:52. Posts 935 | Profile # |
Necropolis looks really cool and I love the theme, but how about adding some deathly doodads if there are any (maybe bones), to make the map more like an undead place? Anyways it looks really dark already and I really like the layout, great work! :D
Oh and is it published in the EU? cause I am really looking forward to playing it Last edit: 2012-06-11 08:53:09 |
| | "He who learns to walk, should never crawl again" | |
|
|
| Gfire United States. June 11 2012 09:11. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
On June 11 2012 08:52 moskonia wrote:Necropolis looks really cool and I love the theme, but how about adding some deathly doodads if there are any (maybe bones), to make the map more like an undead place? Anyways it looks really dark already and I really like the layout, great work! :D Oh and is it published in the EU? cause I am really looking forward to playing it
Sadly I can't publish it until patch 1.5 because I used the beta editor to finish it up. I was told that maps were backwards compatible, but not some of the more advanced things. There's also some issues with the applied texture sets in the beta editor. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| Gfire United States. June 25 2012 05:58. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
| I updated the map with some new concepts and a new poll. There's also a new map in the "in progress" section. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
 Praetorial United States. June 25 2012 06:02. Posts 3631 | Profile Blog # |
Concept 4 is by far the absolute best. The middle allows for very diverse gameplay, really good design there.
In all seriousness, I like 5 the most. XNC's greatest flaw was the open natural(very open), and a vulnerable inbase nat solves that quite elegantly. |
| | FOR GREAT JUSTICE! Bans for the ban gods! |
|
|
| TheFish7 United States. June 25 2012 06:09. Posts 1220 | Profile # |
| /agree w Praetorial. I voted for 5 because I think it could actually work with XNC as the "base map" I might expand the map bounds a touch and/or maybe make the inbase nat higher highground like on crevasse. 4 reminds me of + Show Spoiler + |
| |
|
| moskonia Israel. June 25 2012 07:06. Posts 935 | Profile # |
Inbase expo is full? isn't that a bit much? It might be OK though if the backdoor to the normal nat is wider then normal, but I dunno. Anyways I just love the idea of reworking a map by preserving it cool features and removing its bad ones. It would be really funny if Xel'naga Caverns, the map that stayed the 2nd longest time on ladder would one day come again, reborn!
I really like concept 1 as well, it has some neat features, even though I think you should work on concept 5 first. |
| | "He who learns to walk, should never crawl again" | |
|
|
| 1 2 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2E0ZH.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag7va.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E0k5l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7gJKY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X7J0o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5w4Uq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HDBj1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LW9LD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BnhGk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bCUZf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JRZNk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iX0B3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zs3hD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/276_Grand%20Line.jpg)
