Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (86 users) | |
|
| Bobnoble Luxembourg. June 30 2012 03:12. Posts 48 | Profile # |
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yMKyZl.png)
Old post: + Show Spoiler +Hello TeamLiquid! After almost 2 years of lurking, I've found that it's time to contribute, so... I present you my first map: Processing Plant, published on EU and if requested I can ask a friend to upload it on US. Overview; Analyzer, some detail pics: + Show Spoiler +Spoiler: a lot of babbling about why it did this and that + Show Spoiler +I'm a casual player, and I play pretty much only 2v2 (random diamond). I figured I'd make a map with features that I miss in the current map pool (with the lovely exception of molten crater and, to a lesser extend, magma core). Basically I like having 2 things in 2v2 maps: a lot of bases, and being forced to commit to a certain attack path making it possible to set up a decent defense if scouted (high orbit or magma core come into mind). But what I dislike about maps like Lunar colony V is that its hard for a zerg player to have proper mapcontrol, and it's pretty much impossible for the other 2 races (yes I'm exaggerating to make a point), making it hard to see where attacks are coming form. So first of, it's a huge map, as the analyzer shows it takes 194 (seconds?) from base to base (playable bounds 199x187), I've checked other (mostly 1v1) maps and I believe that its rather big, especially for a 2v2 map, without being overboard. I could be wrong about that though, so please enlighten me.  I've chosen to make "semi-shared" main bases with rather wide ramps, by that it should be possible to assist an attacked teammate, without going through the opponents army. The way is longer for the defender as for the attacker, requiring good management for how much you want to send. This way it's hard to defend an early attack, I did this in order to compensate a bit for the large rush distance. Though I believe that the good ol' 4rax or 7 roach rush are much less viable on such a large map. The potential of 4 gates being too strong because it's easy to hide a pylon is a bit reduced by the XWT placement (I'll go a bit into depth about them below) Also, I decided to give one "free" base for greedy openers, on the other hand, you need to push out quite a bit in order to secure a 2nd or third base, making you more vulnerable to air based harass (medivacs/mutas/warprisms and so on), I did this to make it easier to punish turtling based strats. XWT are placed in a way that it's possible to observe all possible attack paths without revealing potential drop routes. Also if you're taking control of the towers early on you can spot sneaky probes trying to place a “ruin your day” pylon. Personally I think things like that are essential for a 2v2 map, as team games are more volatile than 1v1s, so this should be compensated by easy to achieve mapcontrol. This again makes mobile armies stronger which contributes to my no-turtle-style argument, I think... Enough talk! I guess the rest explains itself. I'd love to hear critics/tips/discussion and if possible replays of your matches as I sadly have no ability to test myself except against an AI. Thanks for reading!
I finally found some time to test my map with a friend. And to be honest it turned out to be a horrible map. I took all the intel we could gather in about a dozen of games and of course those from the friendly folks on TL. Here's a quick summary of the changes I thought necessary while working over processing plant:
- It was intentional that the rush distance was long, but it turned out to be too long. So I've made the rush distance a bit shorter (very messy work to do btw).
- It had too many chokes so I tried to make some (actually most) areas wider.
- Even though it had many expansions, most of them were unattractive. I've changed that by making the single expansions into double ones and made them more defendable. You'll still be quite spread out trying to take your third (or sixth if that's the way you look at it) but it isn't as bad as scorched haven for example.
- The main bases were too tight, if you had a many production facilities it became hard not to make units get stuck, also certain doodads were in the way. Now it's much larger.
- It was ugly and some of my doodads and such were actually hindering at certain places. I tidied it up a little and tried to make it look nicer.
Here's some pics and further comments:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UnKPpl.jpg) Map analyzer didn't want to work anymore maybe patch 1.5 maybe me too dumb, dunno... But with the messure distance tool I come to a rush distance (ramp to ramp) of roughly 170 (193 it was before). The burning cities are (still) unpathable. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q74mfl.jpg) Yep, now two "free bases", just now they aren't free anymore  the area in fornt of it as become much wider. And no! Fully developped creep from a hatch won't prevent non zergs to expand next to it. + Show Spoiler +
That's it! Thanks for reading and please give a lot of feedback! 
*Edit: It is now an arcade map because of ScorpSCII's movement which I personally think it's a great idea Last edit: 2012-08-06 21:28:43 |
| |

|
Aunvilgod June 30 2012 19:24. Posts 2031 | Profile # |
Your mineral placements are suboptimal and not mirrored.
I like the rest of the map. I have no idea about 2v2 so I can´t judge that. |
| |
|
| Bobnoble Luxembourg. June 30 2012 19:44. Posts 48 | Profile # |
On June 30 2012 19:24 Aunvilgod wrote: Your mineral placements are suboptimal and not mirrored.
I like the rest of the map. I have no idea about 2v2 so I can´t judge that.
Oops! The were before I started moving them around :O I'll fix that thanks! |
| |
|
| Guardian85 June 30 2012 23:09. Posts 155 | Profile # |
For a first map it looks very solid, texturing isnt bad, details an aesthetics.
But if i were you i might consider reducing the airspace on the left and right side of the map a tad little. When it comes to Natural cliff edges, i would perhaps smoothen the angles and straight walls a little.
For 2v2, i think having somewhat shared bases makes it feel more of a team play, instead of allies playing seperately, so to that im positive.
About the scale of the map and the distances, im not sure.. you'll have a lot of time to do some real "nesting" before your attacked on any significant scale, so im guessing there is more focus on the defensive part.
One bit unfortunate effect of the map layout, is that cliff walkers have small usage. Again since the size seems to me like Ranked as Epic size, i would assume that the travel distance for melee might be so large, that by the time the force has reached the enemy base, if they have scouted it, they will have the time to produce and prepare. So it would be hard to keep refreshing reinforcements, though im unsure if thats a good or bad thing, depending on what play style.. its definately not for rushing thats for sure.. but you already mentioned that. |
|

|
| Bobnoble Luxembourg. July 01 2012 03:08. Posts 48 | Profile # |
On June 30 2012 23:09 Guardian85 wrote: For a first map it looks very solid, texturing isnt bad, details an aesthetics.
But if i were you i might consider reducing the airspace on the left and right side of the map a tad little. When it comes to Natural cliff edges, i would perhaps smoothen the angles and straight walls a little.
For 2v2, i think having somewhat shared bases makes it feel more of a team play, instead of allies playing seperately, so to that im positive.
About the scale of the map and the distances, im not sure.. you'll have a lot of time to do some real "nesting" before your attacked on any significant scale, so im guessing there is more focus on the defensive part.
One bit unfortunate effect of the map layout, is that cliff walkers have small usage. Again since the size seems to me like Ranked as Epic size, i would assume that the travel distance for melee might be so large, that by the time the force has reached the enemy base, if they have scouted it, they will have the time to produce and prepare. So it would be hard to keep refreshing reinforcements, though im unsure if thats a good or bad thing, depending on what play style.. its definately not for rushing thats for sure.. but you already mentioned that.
Thanks for the analysis! The matter of the airspace is actually not as bad as the overview suggests. Here's a pic with visible bonds so please tell me if it is too much still (besides, the map has undergone some minor changes):
+ Show Spoiler +
On the size argument, I suppose I can't really argue in precise manner on that, I will have to get some friends to play with me on it an see how it turns out but for the close future that's sadly not possible... 
Also, maybe I can come up with something that makes the reenforcement paths shorter for mid/endgame scenarios, maybe by destrucitble rocks (like on daybreak), but it will require deffinetly some radical layout changes so I'm kind of hesitant of doing this right now. |
| |

|
| Guardian85 July 01 2012 05:46. Posts 155 | Profile # |
Those playable bounds look promising  |
|
|
| Bobnoble Luxembourg. August 06 2012 09:37. Posts 48 | Profile # |
| bumbed because all new and shiny! |
| |
|
| MicroMonkey August 10 2012 04:41. Posts 94 | Profile # |
| The ramp dont give defenders adv. but give the attackers adv. attackers go from ramp to ramp but defenders will run around the inbase and get out manovered. |
|
|
| TheFish7 United States. August 10 2012 06:00. Posts 1214 | Profile # |
Have to agree with MicroMonkey's assessment of the main bases - although its not THAT bad, but a defender will have to walk down his ramp to assist in defending a teammate, which makes things a lot more complicated for the defenders. The layout of the main in general is awkward with that big open area in the back corners. However, I do like how you have done a sort of hybrid shared/separate base format, that is kind of cool and definately worth exploring.
You have a lot of straight lines on the cliffs, which is generally considered to be a bit boring. the open area around the gold bases is quite vast, and the watchtowers are on a very small bit of highground, which could be bad because siege tanks camped up there become very tough to take out. I would maybe make that high grounds with the towers much bigger and more accessible, like the one in the mid of antiga shipyard, this would make engagements in that area a bit more interesting. Also, you have a very nasty choke on the lowground of the 3 and 9 oclock positions. I don't see a reason for that except to make it impossible to attack into that double-base. If your going to have a double-base, imo it shouldn't be that hard to attack into it.
Nice layout in general, though, just needs some tweaking. And your aesthetics are very cool and different, I have been wanting to see natural stuff mixed in with the space platform stuff more.Last edit: 2012-08-10 06:02:17 |
| |

|
| Bobnoble Luxembourg. August 10 2012 07:48. Posts 48 | Profile # |
The ramp dont give defenders adv. but give the attackers adv. attackers go from ramp to ramp but defenders will run around the inbase and get out manovered.
On August 10 2012 06:00 TheFish7 wrote: Have to agree with MicroMonkey's assessment of the main bases - although its not THAT bad, but a defender will have to walk down his ramp to assist in defending a teammate, which makes things a lot more complicated for the defenders. The layout of the main in general is awkward with that big open area in the back corners. However, I do like how you have done a sort of hybrid shared/separate base format, that is kind of cool and definately worth exploring.
You have a lot of straight lines on the cliffs, which is generally considered to be a bit boring. the open area around the gold bases is quite vast, and the watchtowers are on a very small bit of highground, which could be bad because siege tanks camped up there become very tough to take out. I would maybe make that high grounds with the towers much bigger and more accessible, like the one in the mid of antiga shipyard, this would make engagements in that area a bit more interesting. Also, you have a very nasty choke on the lowground of the 3 and 9 oclock positions. I don't see a reason for that except to make it impossible to attack into that double-base. If your going to have a double-base, imo it shouldn't be that hard to attack into it.
Nice layout in general, though, just needs some tweaking. And your aesthetics are very cool and different, I have been wanting to see natural stuff mixed in with the space platform stuff more.
First things first: Thank you both for your analysis! I'm rather new to mapmaking as you might have noticed so this helps a lot!
To the attackers advantage: I guess I'll have to move the ramp backwards which will effectively make the ramp to ramp way for attackers longer while defenders will remain the same. Or shall I put an obstacle inbetween them?
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vkYqQl.jpg) This is of course just a quick sketch but you get the idea^^
Of course I'm open to other solutions but those are the ones that came to mind! In any case I want to keep two bases down there and as far as I know this is the most compact way to do it (without having creep of a hatch blocking the other expo to non zergs).
You said something about the big space in the main bases, this has two reasons: First there's pretty much no other safe space to put production buildings, and as it is a huge macro map there will potentially lots of them. On Lunar or Ruins of Tarsonis there's a lot of additional space in the natural area wich you will have to defend anyways at a certain point in the game. But to make things more interesting I'll give the back area more structure. Maybe a "V-cut" or some doodads hmm... Second thing is as terran with many addons, units tend to get stuck if you don't carfully place your buildings as it is a diagonal plane (So you can't use it very efficiently). I've decided to just give some overkill space to avoid that. But I'll reconsider. Solving these two problems will also reduce the amount of straight cliffs, so yes! Good advice.
To the XWT thing, I haven't had many occasions to engage at this place (AIs tend to attack straight -_____-) they were ment to give players the ability to watch both outter attack paths so I never payed much attention to them. I'm sure I'll be able to think of something interesting .
Last the "nasty choke": I'll open that up quite a simple fix thanks for pointing that out.
Guess I'll be back with an updated version in a few days :D
Thanks again <3 |
| |

|
| DoubleReed United States. August 10 2012 10:22. Posts 3133 | Profile Blog # |
Moving the ramps farther away will actually make things worse. If I'm going to defend my ally, I'm just going to go down the ramp a la Scorched Haven. Going around the back wouldn't make any sense. The 'joined bases in the back' isn't really going to help defenders at all realistically (at least not with this set up). If anything it simply makes ling/hellion-runbys more deadly because a flaw on either side exposes both players.
I would suggest putting the ramps behind the naturals rather than in front of the naturals. More like Tempest and less like Scorched Haven. You may want to tuck the mains further back if you want to do this in order to give more room.
Those naturals look really close to each other by the way. Like really close. Like I'm-worried-about-my-creep-covering-my-ally's-base close.
Anyway, cool design!Last edit: 2012-08-10 10:27:03 |
| | Baby, you want to make like Stravinsky and perform a Rite of Spring? |
|
|
| -NegativeZero- United States. August 10 2012 14:38. Posts 586 | Profile # |
| The bottom edges of the cliffs look messed up, with random extra terrain at the bottom. You're probably using a cliff type which isn't designed to be used with space platform maps. |
| |
|
| Bobnoble Luxembourg. August 10 2012 18:39. Posts 48 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 14:38 -NegativeZero- wrote: The bottom edges of the cliffs look messed up, with random extra terrain at the bottom. You're probably using a cliff type which isn't designed to be used with space platform maps.
Up to the point where I read your post I thaught that this random terrain was unavoidable :O.
I'll just add 2 more types of cliffs then for the edges :D
On August 10 2012 10:22 DoubleReed wrote: Moving the ramps farther away will actually make things worse. If I'm going to defend my ally, I'm just going to go down the ramp a la Scorched Haven. Going around the back wouldn't make any sense. The 'joined bases in the back' isn't really going to help defenders at all realistically (at least not with this set up). If anything it simply makes ling/hellion-runbys more deadly because a flaw on either side exposes both players.
I would suggest putting the ramps behind the naturals rather than in front of the naturals. More like Tempest and less like Scorched Haven. You may want to tuck the mains further back if you want to do this in order to give more room.
Those naturals look really close to each other by the way. Like really close. Like I'm-worried-about-my-creep-covering-my-ally's-base close.
Anyway, cool design!
!!! Runbys !!!
Very true you just made my life a lot harder . I'll have to think about that a lot. My first impulse (if that's an english word) was tbh "NO!!! I'll not change my mains that drastically". But on the other hand it makes if it better, also when I move mains further back they will be effictivaly closer making those runbys a bit easier to defend... I'll try it out amongst other things thanks for pointing it out!
*edit: The thing with the naturals, it's been tested fully developped hatch creep doesn't block expands.Last edit: 2012-08-10 18:51:29 |
| |

|
| | | |
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...

|