new account
list users
Map DB
Map Access
New map
Edit map

Back to "final" maps.   Show all maps.
Last update for (2) Hell March : 2020, 09, 21 17:11
mapIDMapname (comments)map sizeAuthorRatingTypeplay type
5212 (2) Hell March otherHotRedIron0.3finalground

The map has been rated 18 times and got a total of 5 points

You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
Comments:   GMCS (0 elements)

Map size 192×64? Why??!!?
Why not?
Awfully tiny minimap, lots of enforced linearity and, in this case, tons of wasted space you aren't even using.
I think the minimap is big enough where it matters! ;)
I don't know what you mean by enforced linearity. The expansion route that the players are supposed to take? Both land 3rds have high grounds above them, although one of them is easier to cover, but the point is to make it a hard choice either way. But I can totally see terran taking the 3rd on the high ground and covering the mineral line with tanks and a floating building, for example. And then there's the island which is also an option and has no such problem, but it is an island...
About wasted space: I agree that there's space on the edges that I don't use, and that's because the map size was originally 160x64, but that messed up the mini-map in-game real bad. So I either had to cut the finished map down to 128x64 or bump it up to 192x64. The former would have made my concept inexecutable so I went with the latter. Apart from the edges I see no wasted space, every area serves its purpose as far as I can tell. The only thing that I was thinking about was adding a mineral only between the main the and closest horizontal expansion (where there's currently tar), but that would have made the map more standard than I would have liked.

EDIT: Although in ZvT I guess it's pretty straight-forward. Anyway, I don't think it's any more forced than say, Match Point.
modified by HotRedIron
Just a bad concept from the get-go honestly. 192x64 mapsize is just bad for competitive play because of the inherent issues Freak provided. Obviously if you are making maps for fun and playing with friends or casuals online it doesn't matter and nobody cares, but then again... keep making maps like that and people will keep not caring. Like anything in life you need to take yourself seriously or nobody else will XD.

Linearity as in... well, lines. Here, only 1. What does the path from main to main look like on this map? 1 straight line. This is the path that units will take if you order them to attack-move from your main or nat to the other player's base.

Are there alternative routes? Technically, yes. But no player in their right mind would take them, it makes no sense, and attack-move on the minimap to the other player's base naturally moves the units in this linear fashion. Now, you do have 2 ramps in the middle which serve as chokes so maybe somebody can hold those in case of an incoming push (although desert pit doesn't have different vision height if I remember correctly, so it's theorectically worse than I am making it sound).

The point is you need space for players to maneuver their armies around each other, flank, threaten reinforcements and pick them off, etc. What also helps with that is having alternate paths, and generally speaking with 2 player maps you don't want 1 narrow path down the middle where players are forced to concede ground in order to retreat without being able to out-maneuver/threaten the enemy in some way.

One of the reasons BW is so balanced is because non-mirror match ups usually consist of one army being stronger but less mobile than the other. In terms of mobility, Z>T and Z>P. On the other hand, you have P>T. But if you look at these, in most stages of the game the more mobile race usually doesn't win in a head-on engagement with the other. This is why allowing mobility in maps is so important and this is why starting with a 192x64 map just aint good bro. The map can't be good if it is fundamentally flawed.

That and the space you DO have is not used well to put it bluntly.

And no, this map is not like Match Point in any way. You need to learn why small path-big path 2 player maps are the way that they are. Take a look at Match Point more closely, or even Peaks of Baekdu (which is outdated but even mapmakers back in 2006 were starting to understand this concept, even if it was pretty basic).

Other examples of small-big path: Blitz, Blue storm, Polaris Rhapsody, Loki, Flight-Dreamliner.

examples of 2 path 2 player maps: Heartbreak Ridge, Bloody Ridge

1 path but wide/spacious: Sin Chupung-Ryeong, Tiamat

Alternative: Destination (3 bridges but spacious), Odd-Eye (no direct paths actually, just 2 sides), HitchHiker (piece of shit), Baekmagoji (no direct path)
If he meant linearity as you said it, well, lots of maps have one straight line from one player to another as the main path. And yes, there are those two alternative paths, which makes it three. The fact that you can only expand along those two side paths makes it even better. The fact that players can possibly expand to two opposite sides can make it even better. And then there are the islands, too. With that in mind, I don't see a problem with maneuovrability. Drops or air-play could even come into play due to the narrower side paths and the verticality (not to mention the islands).

How am I supposed to use the space then? I don't see anything wrong with how I am using it. Again, each area has (and serves) its purpose.

And your comment about Match Point is pointless since that's not the kind of linearity that I was talking about. But I suspect you know that as well.

And hey, who said that small path / big path is the way to go? No authority on this one as far as I'm concerned. Even you listed some maps where that is not true.

If this map is fundamentally flawed in your eyes, that's fine with me. It's just as I wanted it. But you are all free to stick to those rules of yours and make maps the way you've been making maps for 10 years and end up with the same results. I like to do my own thing.

And no, I don't expect anyone to play my maps. Would love to see them played by top foreign players of course, but when foreign leagues would rather use 10-15 year old Korean maps instead of giving any maps from this site a chance I know it's never going to happen. But maybe one day someone will look at this map and go "oh hey, something different! Let's give this a try!".
Linearity simply means that, for all preactical intents and purposes, there is only one, tight path along which players can move and expand. The islands clearly belong to one player, thus this does not change the linearity.
The alternate paths are so close together and the overall map is so narrow (and it does not even use the full width for usable paths, so effectively the centre is only ~32 tiles high, one group of tanks can clog that!) that it does not break linearity in any meaningful way.
And no, no way you can even sneak a drop through against any halfway decent player under these circumstances.

I don't know how closely you follow the Korean or foreign StarCraft scenes, but as a matter of fact maps from this site have been being used in foreign tournaments regularly for years now, and since the release of remastered also on the official ladder and in Korean tournaments.

You seem to be of the sort who things "different" is automatically good and that you can just do anything and know everything better. I'd suggest you admit to yourself that you probably do not know much about creating mêlée maps and start by studying maps that have been used in high level play and/or are generally considered good by players and/or spectators. There are actually no "rules", but there are things that, over time, have just proven themselves again and again to work well. You should understand why various (!) maps are the way they are first, then you'll get a much better idea of what could actually be done differently in your own maps.
modified by Freakling
I don't know if you read my comment to you, but if you did, you know I don't agree with your first statement.

And yeah, a group of tanks can cover a lot in the centre, but you can play around that with drops or air play. And who said anything about sneaking through drops? You can just drop straight-up, especially if you've got the multitasking to draw your opponent's attention elsewhere. Plus there's a highground from which you can cover your drops on the opponent's side...

Okay, you're right, some leagues have used some maps from this site, mostly the most standard ones or the ones tested by ASL. My point still stands in so much as they are not willing to take any risks and would just rather stick to the old-and-tried ones.

Different is not automatically good, you're just assuming that. I have made standard maps, just look at Black Velvet. What I know is the concept that I'm going for and that I executed it the way *I* wanted it. Yeah, you guys think it sucks. Fine by me, but I'd love to see it tested by top foreign level players throughout a dozen or so games in every match-up. If it turns out to be terrible, then all right. And the current way people play on other maps might not work on it. That's the point. But if players actually tried to play the map and adjust to it, it might just give us something new.

And I'd suggest that you admit that you just assume everything about this map without ever having seen it in action, or any other map like it, for that matter.

I don't need to study maps that are all the same. I can do that all day. Again, just look at Black Velvet. Fits right in with all those other standard maps, although I've tried to spice it up a little. And like I said, if you stick with the "things that have proven them over time", you'll end up with the same maps. And you all make maps like that, and the games all look the same on them. Roadkill, Whiteout, Clay Fields, the list goes on. They all play the same. Inner Coven was a good try, though!

Please, don't try to teach me how to make maps. You can't teach me how to make maps. No one can teach me how to make maps. You can only teach me how *you* want me to make maps. I don't want to make maps like you or everybody else. I'd rather have my own concepts. If they fail, they fail. But I'm not willing to say it failed until it did so in actual gameplay a dozen times and people like koget or trutacz say it's terrible after they have tried to play to the map's strengths and amount for its weaknesses. And yes, that will never happen, but that's just how it is.
I think you are right. Probably no one can teach you anything…
I guess you better go talk to koget and trutacz then!
I don’t really play the game anymore, and maybe some of my knowledge is outdated when it comes to mapmaking and meta game. But I drop by to give criticism in an effort to help you not hurt you. Sometimes you need people to tell you you’ve done a bad job so that you can improve. I mean it’s happened to me here on this site as well. And you definitely have a choice when it comes to listening to others. You can keep submitting maps on here, i always enjoy seeing new maps and seeing the site being used. I just won’t comment on your maps anymore if you dont want me to XD
JungleTerrain, you can comment, there's nothing wrong with that, but please understand that the choices that I made are *deliberate*. I know this is not how a standard/usual map looks like and that's the whole point. What you guys see as (fundamental) flaws are there on purpose to make new ways of playing possible. You're not helping by pointing out what I already know and just calling it bad. If it's bad in your opinion, that's fine by me, but I will just simply disregard your opinion, because it's not about what you guys think about how the map should be, it's about realising my vision. Do I go to all of your maps and point out all the things that I don't like? No, I just look at it, try to understand what you were trying to do and if I have nothing to add to make *your* concept better I won't comment, and I certainly won't go and try to force you to adjust your map according to how *I* think it should play. I'm sure you'd disregard my opinion as well, so what's the point? Hopefully now you can clearly see where I'm coming from.
I wouldn't mind if you went to my maps and commented on them and criticized them... the only problem is that I don't really make maps anymore so I would never implement anything anyone said, and even if I did make maps I am lazy and it would take me months to change anything haha

but oh well ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Small tweaks:

- placed the neutral CC between the main and the closest horizontal exp
- bigger ramps at 12 and 6
- some minor gas and mineral adjustments

Upload replay for this map
Add your comment:

Because of heavy spam on the map comments, it is needed to be logged in to post. We are sorry that this has to be done because nothing else stops spam bots
random map
Newest updates:
  (4)Nocturne of Sh..
  (2)Odd-Eye 4.2c
  (2)Lobotomy 2.82
  (3)Ra 0.66
  (2v6)Rich vs Lean
  • month 6:
      (2)Butter 2.0b
  • MOTW
  • week 2021.01:
      (3) Lambda 1.0
  • Main Forum
  • New B..(Kroznade)
  • Magna..(addressee)
  • No Fo..(Pension)
  • Share..(Shade)R)
  • Feedback
  • This s..(triller1)
  • Rotati..(triller1)
  • Off Topic
  • scm dr..(addressee)
  • Real L..(Pension)
  • Vetera..(ProTosS4Ev)
  • Starcraft 2
  • announ..(triller1)
  • STARCR..(triller1)
  • Search Forum
  • x  
  • How to make larvae spawn at the bottom right corner  
  • Worker pathing guide - How to debug and balance resour
  • Competition:
  • Innovative Naturals Competition  
  • Tourney Map Pack Aspirant Suggestions  
  • Maps That Need A Remake  
  • Think Quick Map Contest ($100 prize)