BWMN Time

04/18/2024

12:35

Map Access

Forum - main

Map Contest for a Tournament at instarcraft.de page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Woedin	My map is in. :D I dont agree with the changes to the Naturals (gas issue), it does make the nats look better. I take it we are holding off until the tourney is done before we upload and crit these maps? modified by Woedin
2008, 12, 10 00:40
Nightmarjoo	Aquila The nat is too open. Protoss cannot conceivably FE vs zerg, and expoing later on too should be difficult. Also, the main2main distance is too short, which makes the hard nat even harder. Zerg FE vs terran could be hard because of how spacious the nat is (hard to block ramp/nat with sunks), and the short distances only make that harder. This doesn't make zerg FE impossible, but it forces zerg to make more lings. Also, the nat being hard on terran forces him to do more 2rax/3rax oriented openings anyway. The min onlys are too close to eachother, and too close to your opponent. If you can take your min only, you probably already won. The 3rd gas is too close to the min only, and having both being cliffable by the same land-accessible cliff is dangerous (for gameplay). Why is the 3rd gas so far from the cliff too? The gas/minerals of the main being against the edge of the map is awkward. You can't place turrets or cannons or spores etc properly at the nat. The thing at the bottom of the map is too tight to be useable. There's no flank room anywhere. Not only is the map incredibly linear, it's incredibly tight. Linear alone can make an open map "tight", but linear + having a lack of space is even worse. The piece of the main that sticks out is kind of awkward. The corner expos should be more like the corner expos in Bluestorm. Conceptually what the map does is force 1base play. Retardedly unsafe nat (too open + cliffable), in addition to cliffable mains (lol) equals 1base oriented play every game. Um, and the nat cliff on the right being temple (unbuildable) is a positional imbalance. This in and of itself isn't "bad", but can't really be considered racially balanced. Also, it doesn't seem like the author understands what he's doing either. 8 main + 8 nat? Why put a main's mineral in the nat if you want to encourage use of the main longer? It's kind of zerg favouring for one, but early zvt is not so unbalanced that such a measure is necessary, and the map seems pretty z>p early on to me. Later on, the map is unfixably t>z and p>z, but I doubt the game will get there. The decoration is terrible, and the mineral formations are terrible, which further makes me believe the author has no idea what he's doing. More evidence for that is in how his min only has 7 blocks, the 3rd gas has 9, and the unsafe corner has 7. That makes no sense at all. Why make a more micro oriented, 1base oriented map, with such high mineral amounts? Also, no good maps have ever used this form of symmetry or layout. It's not unique, there's tons of maps which use the symmetry and layout, but they're all bad, because the layout is inherently bad. Conceptually it's not terrible, but I don't believe the author even intended the map to have that concept, because the top half and bottom half of the map don't match up at all, in addition to undeniably bad execution all over the map (bad formations, bad shapes, bad distances, bad visuals, bad edges, etc). Everything about the map is sloppy. Saving the concept means making a new map which doesn't resemble this map in any shape or form. Saving the map means destroying the concept entirely. Actually, it's impossbile to save the map, it's going to have flaws no matter what, but it can be made more "playable", with execution errors "fixed". Foroya (2)128x128 map. End of story honestly. The best 2 player 128x128 map ever made is Hwarangdo, and it is not a good map and did not play well in proleague and had attrocious balance. Most of the issues I'm goign to name are directly caused by the author attempting to compensate for the fact that he has too much space to work with. Mains are waaaaaaaaay too big. Main2main distances are way too long. In fact, the nat2nat distances are about what the main2main distances should be, and thus also are too long. Gas issue for god's sake rofl -_- Sooooo much wasted space all over the map lol, especially the nat cliffs, those are bigger than the nats alone should be. Why are the nats larger than Russia? The nats are bigger than the mains should be, what the fuck? What is the author thinking? 9 main 9 nat 7 min only? Really? In addition to lots of tight bridges and tight ramps, combined with attrociously far spread apart expos, turtle map much? Map is somehow incredibly linear and tight, even with more room than they could ever need for a (2)map. Bluestorm is less tight lol -_- This is making the map even more turtley. Then they get a free 3rd gas behind that xel naga. Its structure is bad, making it easy to turtle and hard (relatively) to drop. Oh, and it's tankable. Not cliffable, just tankable. I don't understand how that helps balance, since the map is already t>p t>z, but oh well, maybe the author is just smarter than me. Decoration is terrible. Oh, and what is the neutral in the nat for lol. And no ovy spot makes me sad :( Umm and that's it. I don't mean, that's the end of the issues, I just mean there's nothing else in the map. I don't know what the concept is. It's just a linear turtle map, from what I can see. Everything in the map supports that, nothing contradicts that or compensates for it, so I can only assume that's what the author intended. The map can't be fixed at all really. There's no concept, so it can't be saved. The map itself is just an assortment of expos and tight linear paths. Thanks to scmdraft's symmetry tool, anybody can make this map in about five minutes. Remnant This map is not bad. It's actually pretty interesting for a standard map, but it has some fatal flaws. Mains are too big, and space is wasted by making water around them. The nat is too big/open and lacks an ovy spot. 8main? Nothing else in the map indicates it's a micro-oriented map, so I dunno why it's not 9, just going to change normal timing for no real reason other than to change normal timing, which is annoying. I'd reccomend making it either 9/7 or 8/6. The map's biggest problem is that it's hard to move around. The paths are tight and linear. The paths don't branch off at all, they just go to one place and have one entrance. First of all, I reccomend moving the main towards the nat and shrinking them, and fixing the nat. Then, moving the 3/9 expos to where the mains used to be, and using the new space to enlarge the paths and bridges and ramps etc. Which bridges/ramps he enlarges is up to him. That's concept territory, and I don't understand the concept, so while I can give my suggestions, I can't say what the "best" thing to do here is. I kind of want a tight path added where that small puddle by the nat is, but that would be more awkward than helpful. It might not be needed depending on how the nat is redone. The stuff above/below the nat just needs brought next to the nat, and an ovy spot added. This includes bringing the min only closer to the nat at the same time. I think the min only should be only a little farther from the nat than it is in bluestorm, otherwise the two min onlys are imo too close. If that's done correctly, simply making that ramp wider should make main2main pathing better. At the moment it feels similar to even paths (even though that's not the case) for some reason. Oh, and the water by the nat needs greatly removed. A little water is good for balancing out the bottom tile problem, but otherwise I feel the choke should be closed from above for pathing's sake. I also kind of want a ramp leading from the highground path to the middle (by the bridges), but that's up to the author. Basically, if the map becomes mobile/non-linear/open through these edits, add a mineral block to the mains. Else, take one away from the nat and reduce gas amounts all-over. Map needs to be more fluid and less turtley. I don't know if lesser resource values will help this, but higher values certainly will hurt it (make map more turtley). More coming later.
2008, 12, 10 02:35
Woedin	Thanks Nightmarjoo brutal and honest which I want. FYI original concept for Remnant had an eggwall on the center ramps, nuetral creep in center expos, the nat made a choke when taken from building placement, a wider ramp in Natural and a few other things that made pathing issues, what you see now has fixed pathing and Judges edits. The highground bridge ramped into center also. If you can immagine that, you can see the gameplay (it was very turtley). I'll look at all your comments when I make the BWMN version from the original (very soon), we can balance, till then.
2008, 12, 10 03:13
Nightmarjoo	Yeah I was looking at the maps and I came to that map and I'm like "hey this isn't half bad", then looked at the author "oh right, another bwm author's map, no wonder it's so much better".
2008, 12, 10 04:54
arctics86	Hi, I'm the terrible "author" of those terrible maps^^... Yes you are right, I'm neither a mapping expert nore a gameplay expert. Those three maps were pretty much the first maps I ever created. My intention was to create maps that are different. So I created a small, a huge and a standard map. I wanted them to be different from those standard maps like Python oder Othello, which must have been created by a godlike genius like you. Those maps are of course much better than mine, but to me (as a sc watcher) they can get boring sometimes. You criticized the amount of min-patches in several locations - what was I thinking? nothing!... but isn't that something you can change in five seconds? You said that those maps are ugly, I think they are ok or pretty (bsp. Foroya). Your acceptance of me not knowing what to do with all the space on the maps is wrong. I wanted all the maps to be how they are. I don't really understand the intention of your posts. Have you send in some maps which are not in the map pool, or are there other "bwm"-maps that haven't made it, or are you just the worldwide Mapping authority who has to commentate everything?
2008, 12, 10 13:09
ProTosS4EveR	"I don't really understand the intention of your posts. Have you send in some maps which are not in the map pool, or are there other "bwm"-maps that haven't made it, or are you just the worldwide Mapping authority who has to commentate everything?" he is the only one who is not too lazy to post so long posts to help people, i personally appreciate it very much
2008, 12, 10 13:33
arctics86	These posts don't sound very heplful. I also accept and welcome the criticism, but he is overdoing it a little, so I asked for the intention. You can say the same thing in a completely different tone. modified by arctics86
2008, 12, 10 13:40
Woedin	Chickenlord ask why he didnt like them, he is replying as far as I saw. I personaly WANT him to crit my maps to that detail,... Yeah he can come across forcefuly but that is his pride in this site comming through which some people find admirable and others mistake I think.
2008, 12, 10 14:04
Chickenlord	This is nightmarjoo... ;) I'd like to thank you, for that you gave me an answer this fast. In some points you're right, and i'm going to have another look at the maps. But, im sorry to say this, some are just wrong. So as i said, im going to ahve another look at those maps and lets see what i'll change. But don't xpect too much, i won't change the whole map. EDIT: I say, some are wrong beacause we've played lots of games on these maps ;) And if youve got the time, plz criticize the other maps. Im doing most stuff on my own, so it can't be wrong to get your opinion. modified by Chickenlord
2008, 12, 10 14:09
arctics86	I just don't see why everything different from standard is a problem. Why can't the main2main distance be long, why can't the nat be as big as russia^^, why can't there be Powergenerators that don't affect the gameplay? So maybe the maps are imba, favoring the Terran... wayne, this is a fun tournament and in the tournament last Sunday, there were almost no Terrans^^ Let's just hope there will be enough participators, up until now there are only two signed up
2008, 12, 10 14:26
Nightmarjoo	How do you sign up? I'll play. I'll respond more to your comments later arctic.
2008, 12, 11 01:27
Chickenlord	http://cup.ingame.de/tournament.php?gid=9&tid=446&lang=en here you can sign up, but you'll need an instarcraft.de account which you can make here http://www.ingame.de/account/register
2008, 12, 11 08:04
Nightmarjoo	lol 15 cet is 8:00 here :( I'll try and make it though...
2008, 12, 12 01:41
NastyMarine	I WIN
2008, 12, 12 16:39
Nightmarjoo	Arctic86 There's a reason why many map features are "standard". If you differ from these standards, you had better understand what you're actually changing when you alter map features and concepts. Every little change can have potentially drastic implications on gameplay. The current map trends tend to try and maintain some form of balance, and stable gameplay. The point is to keep available many strategical options, so there can be long games, short games, close games, complete rapes, etc. If you differ from the standards, you had better be addressing the gameplay in some form of compensation, else you inherently imbalance or lessen the gameplay quality. My posts will never be helpful to you because we have completely different views of mapping, as far as I can see. For me, just winging a map inherently creates a bad map. Statistically not even good luck can help you there. It's better to start out by copying the "standard" features until you understand them, and then you can deviate later since you by then understand what you're doing. Purposefully varying from everything normal in a map will never create a good map. Also, my posts aren't helpful for you because you have absolutely no plan or concept in mind (which is why the maps turned out so "badly" ). I can best help someone refine their concept and execute it better, but all I can do is list what's "bad" for gameplay if there's no coherent concept. Since this is a mapping competition for a tournament, you should be attempting at the very least to make a comfortable map. That means you must have standard features to some extent. If the maps are too different from what people are used to playing, it won't be fun to play because they'll be too busy adjusting to the new map. And yes, I am the go-to guy when it comes to foreign mapping because I write very long/detailed/in-depth analysises based on my understanding of both mapping and of the game itself. Chickenlord, I'd be happy to test any and all of my theories on gameplay with you or others if needed, I am quite sure most of what I say is very accurate. Everything I write is based on what I would do if I was playing the map, why I would do it, and what I would do if I was the other player, playing vs what I said I'd do. I consider myself an average gamer, and thus it makes sense that whatever would pop into my head would be what another average gamer would think to do, etc.
2008, 12, 13 03:46
Nightmarjoo	S.o.Spirit gas issue wasted space bad mineral formations expo layout is very turtley emphasis on the center given the large space allocated to it appears to contradict the side-orientation of the expo layout. Appears too tight, too linear, and it's hard to move around within the paths. The expo layout does not make a whole lot of sense to me, and execution overall is less than ideal. I don't really have any suggestions, since there isn't any concept. It's just a normal/standard map with very easy to take but hard to attack expos, and along with the map's great tightness and linearity make what appears to me to be a turtle map. It could easily be improved with just tweaking the execution, but since it seems to just attempt to badly clone bluestorm I don't see why the map needs be worked on anyway. Better to just replace it with bluestorm; I don't understand what the author's intent is. Terran Harbor gas issue poor symmetry choice leads to poor, linear pathing. Given the symmetry the map is even surprisingly tight also. neutrals and mineral blocks can cause bad pathing in general too many mineral blocks attrociously poor mineral formations poor use of the tileset in addition to generally poor execution results in way too much of the map's space being used up by the main/nats, resulting in the rest of the map being very linear, tight, and having an abnormal expo layout. Conceptually the main/nat layout is worth saving, having cliffable mains and nats, but a safe nat is an interesting way to encourage 1base play while making normal FE builds potentially still quite viable. Unfortunately, the rest of the map is fairly terrible in my opinion. I think this is caused by the mains and nats being too large though. The map I think also could benefit from being remade not only with smaller main/nats, possibly using a different tileset, but also using rotational symmetry. Mineral blocks need to be lessened. I see no reason for making the map 9/9/8/11/9/8, 9/7/6/7 would be better imo. Maybe 10/6/5/7, or even 8/6/6/7 to increase the viability of 1base play or to increase the micro-orientation of the map respectively. The author does appear to have sucessfully made a terran map; balance should be t>p t>z p>z. Thunder Aside from execution and visual tweaks I'm not really sure how this could be improved. The mains are too large, but the sl appears positioned so that it shouldn't hurt gameplay, and I cannot see any way to better use the space aside from merely increasing the size of the middle, which likely could be difficult to execute anyway and likely could be problematic for the map in the end. Postional balance might be off slightly, but at a glance I don't see any major imbalances. My biggest complaint with the map is in how overlord-unfriendly the map appears. The map is not perfectly executed, but appears conceptually sound. My complaints are mostly with the execution of the map. Balance and gameplay-wise I think the map should be ok. The nat cliff and the cliffable gas expos make for an interesting mechanic. Till the Day Good map. There are some execution flaws, and probably slight positional imbalances, and the middle sucks, but otherwise the map seems quite solid. The mains seem too big, but not to the extent where that should hurt the map, and anyway that's sort of part of the concept. Visually the map leaves room for improvement, but it's ok. Tlatsomething Map is more or less executionally sound, but the concept is boring. Long distances and too-large mains will be annoying though. I think the map could be better if the concept was bolder. I think maybe the map should add a lot more harass-potential (making all the bases cliffable, including mains), a mineral block added to the main, taking a few from the nat, and other features to clearly emphasize/encourage 1base play. Otherwise the map is a boring normal/standard map with too-large mains and too-long distances. Should play well though of course. WeiBapfel Awkward mains, poor symmetry choice, too few expos, lots of wasted space, no ostensible concept. The only redeemable feature of the map is the highground middle aesthetics. This map cannot possibly play well because its expo layout is essentially non-existant. Heavy positional variety resulting in positional-dependent gameplay is a lot closer to positional imbalance imo. I'm not going to attempt to guess at balance, but all I can say is that gameplay will be boring and/or one-sided. Too much is "wrong" with the map to really go into anything in-depth. All I can reccomend is that the author finishes the map. I feel like I'm looking at half a map here -_-
2008, 12, 13 04:18
arctics86	It would be great if you could name a map that is somehow perfect and make a short list of the reasons. If there's already something like that, a link would be helpful. Are there Tutorials or something like that which explain how to map right? I know my maps aren't great (although they took a lot of time - I didn't use the mirror-tools), but I will make more maps in the future and they should become at least acceptable
2008, 12, 13 11:23
Chickenlord	Btw, whats that mirror-tool? Never used or heard of it... So well, i've got new ideas for the next time and therefore i cann promise you we'll do a better job.
2008, 12, 13 12:59
Nightmarjoo	tourney is in 1 hour?
2008, 12, 13 13:04
arctics86	tourney starts in 2 hours, check-in is in 90min (now it's 13:30 in Europe)
2008, 12, 13 13:33
	page: 1 2 3 4 5 6