| BWMN Time |
| 04/16/2024 |
| 11:44 |
| News |
| new account |
| list users |
| Login: |
| Replays |
| Map DB |
| ICCup |
| Map Access |
| New map |
| Edit map |
 |
Forum - main
Map Discussion page: 1 | ||
| Ok, after i and LGI are discussing on what a map should look like, i thought, why not making a thread out of it, instead of spamming in the comment. Ok, here are my main points of how a map should look like: - a map should be balanced - the map should offer several tactical possibilities - no race should have to many advantages over an other - new elements are nice - known tactics should work - players should not be forced to use a certain tactic on a map Think that are the most improtant points i can think of. Also, what i say and say again: "A good map allows you to play almost every tactic you can think of, while others force you to play a certain tactic" To show you that this is not just simple-minded theory, i now try to "prove" somehow that such a map defenitely can be created. What may be dumb, but it's the best i can think of, is to take my own and by far best map, Temple of Eden, as an example. I especially mention tactical possibilities: ### mainbases - big enough to allow the player to build every building he needs on it, also to make a canonrush possible, still the distance to the choke is good ### natural - naturals are in front of the choke to give zerg the chance to do a fast expansion (safe) - naturals still are not exactly AT the choke, there is a slight distance to cover (vulnerable) - no cliff at the natural and easy to cover dropzone (safe) - still a dropzone and often ignored by defenders, defending units take some time to get to aggressors (vulnerable) ### mineral onlies - 2 of them lie in the mapcenter (vulnerable), on highground, without droppable mineralline (safe). - it's risky to expand there because it lies in the mapcenter somehow, still it's easier defendable through the highground. also it`s somehow hidden, after it's not in the line of sight of scoutunits - allows to surprise/backstab an attacking force on horizontal matchups ### "natural" mineral onlies - lie towards the enemy, with a cliff in it's back - droppable with every race (vulnerable) - easier to defend on ground after it has the "same big entrance" as the natural (safe) - nice proxy hidden gate/canon/rax/fax spot near to the main/natural, not in the normal scout line of sight - higher tactical value after mining minerals through extra gas - easy to take cliff and cover 2 expansions (good for aggressor) - easy to counterdrop after it is big enoguh, and unbuildable, so just good for a short drop (good for defender) ### islands - islands lie near the mainbase, to be easy and fast defendable (safe) but have a big almost unbuildable dropzone and are attackable/accessable trough an other mainbase (vulnerable) ### various stuff - safe floatingrax/drop/airunit-path around the map, "outer ring", visible through the water parts on the map/islands - several high ground to give airunits the chance to attack every expansion and hide from groundunits - still all expansions are defandable with groundunits against airunits - if a player is able to take both islands, he has a big advantage, that somehow draws the attention from the center to the mainbases/mapedges, which allows different strategies as well - center allows to surround your enemy - center tree formations make it easy to "play with the terrain" in a centered fight, still those trees aren't at the mainpaths from base to base to prevent dumb unit movement. - and and and I stop here after i want to start the discussion. Maybe you know see that a map is able to cover almost all strategies, after everything is somehow safe and vulnerable at the same time. That way, you can do whatever you wan't to do, if hidden proxy gate, hidden canons behind natural mineral line, even a floating rax rush is possible on horizontal matchup... and you are not forced to play any gamestyle. You are only forced to scout like an idiot because the possibilities are so various. Some comments? Opinions? What should a map look like? Am i right or am i just talking bullshit? | ||
| 2005, 11, 27 22:57 | ||
| If a map looks good, then im happy :P | ||
| 2005, 11, 27 22:59 | ||
| haha, really had to laugh now :) true somehow ^^ | ||
| 2005, 11, 27 23:04 | ||
| btw were you bored when you posted that? :P | ||
| 2005, 11, 27 23:08 | ||
| I'd say angry ^^ other beat their wifes, i beat the keys ;) | ||
| 2005, 11, 27 23:43 | ||
| page: 1 | ||
Reply:
You have to be logged in to post
 |