Sorry, seems like its just me failing at using imgur.
I usually multiply the default X and Y resolution until it hits somewhere near 2000, select Ingame settings, and then use Gimp to convert the .tga to .png. It results in high quality images, where you can zoom in and study every tiny part of the map. <</quote>> Pretty much what I use except photoshop but it messes the colours up and creates artefacting. I use quite extensive lightning customization and the export map image renderer doesn't seem to capture them all, this map actually looks red with them for one.
Quote:
As for your map, I really don't like the tiny ramps at the lowground 4th and the center area. Would it be possible to widen those by one?
I've gone through a lot of discussion with myself and other people about that, those ramps have gone from not there, to 3x3, to 6x3, to 6x3 with 3x3 being blocked by rocks and I'm still not sure of what the best is
The issue of them is that they are a luxury already, there are already many ways to attack without them. The idea is that you have 3 paths to enter the high ground on that side, one is of course larger but near a tower and near the bulk of his army most likely. Another is further away but very small so it can be defended quite cost effectively with some area control units, the third is again wider but much, much further away.
The map would be operable even if the tiny ramps didn't exist though, you don't have to go through them, there are many more avenues of attack.
Quote:
And as a last note, be careful about that circle doodad in the center, it can very easily hinder vision of the player.
Indeed, I tested it with a variety of units and it seems some-what fine for now, it's very skeletal and you can see what's under it pretty clearly.
Also, export map image for me seems to yield highly compressed and artefacted tga images that look like JPG-30 or something, no idea if there's some setting you can change that with but they don't look pretty here, they also distort the colours.
The idea is good, but I think the main problem you're going to run into (that I haven't seen listed) is that expansions still cost 300/400 minerals. For just a couple of patches, this means you get a lot less bang for your bucks, meaning players are simply less likely to expand in the first place. I predict games where both players will turtle on 2-bases and end the game before anyone takes a third. And if anyone even plans on taking a third, he'd immediately need a fourth to get the same effect as in a normal game, which means he'll immediately be spread out like hell. The way I see it, Zerg players have to survive the first 20 minutes of the game while having a really rough time, after which they'll win basically anything.
Yap, that's a point that's often raised about this idea. That's why I made the expos slowly be more sparse and sparse. One third is normal, the other third is 2g 6m, after that come the 1g and 6m patches. At that point, for both P and Z minerals should no longer be a concern enough to not plant down hatches and nexus for that extra gas. T generally wants to expand towards the centre to create a strong staging point with a PF. At least, that's the theory, not sure how it works out that way. I did do some 7gate blink all ins against Z to test if he could defend them and he held them pretty nicely on the more defensive expo, my PvZ training partner has yet to take the lowground expansion first though.
Hi, I'm an EU P/Z master player, my T is about diamond level I reckon, my TvP may be master level, that's about what I know about this game and how good I am at it.. this is the first map I made, I learnt the map editor specifically to test the 'fewer resources per base' hypothesis.
As some of you may or may not know, there's an hypothesis going on amongst mapmakers which observes the fact that because you about saturate 3 bases with 70 workers, and getting more than that is too detrimental to your max, you are never offered enough incentive to take more than 3 bases in SC2, thereby forcing your army to be less spread out, thereby creating 'blob vs blob' games.
The solution proposed is simple, give bases fewer resources. This map has a grand total of 20 expansions, some of which are however very small containing only things like 4 mineral patches or 3 mineral patches and a rich geyser, most however contain 6 minerals and 1 gas or 2 gas and 6 minerals. The main and natural however are standard expos as opening build orders may depend too much on a standard influx of resources.
Another thing added is many choke points, watch towers, and counter attack paths which further forces you to be more spread out, choke points can be held with a disadvantaged army in a superior position with forcefields, better concave, tanks, fungal, storm, nukes, until re-enforcements arrive.
Apart from that, some concious design decisions I made were:
don't make the natural hyper-defensible with only one entrance which can be covered by one static D building, I just never liked that, at least make defending an early expo take more skill than knowing where to place a bunker or spine, make all-ins well defesible, but make pressure very viable still.
a choice between two thirds, one is more defensible but has fewer resources, I do like that.
no rotationally symmetric 4 player maps, that's just silly in my opinion
one main path leads to the enemy so you can't 'accidentally' get a base race, you have to purposefully know where his army is and avoid it.
main bases are blinkable, makes both muta harass well defensible and leads to more interesting PvP's.
no silly stuff like main base or natural gases being easily siegable, the less defensible third is just barely siegeable from the high ground however but it's well reachable and that's the risk you take while going for the 'greedier' expo in ZvT.
All this is very experimental obviously and there are many issues that may come from this:
The many chokepoints might make this map unfavourable for Zerg in both ZvP and ZvT
The many counter attack paths might make this map too favourable for Zerg, especially in ZvT.
The fact that you are required to take more bases for the same income, and Zerg's production mechanic simply means that Zerg will have more larvae available than they normally would, what would be a macro hatch with this income is now a full fledged base where P and Z don't get gateways and raxes for free from it.
The spread out expansions might be too favourable for Zerg as the most mobile race.
The many chokepoints might make this map too favourable for Protoss with their forcefields and AoE
The many ridges and crevasses might make PvT a nightmare because MM can range your chargelots from across the gaps without fear of retaliation
The spread out expansions might be too favourable for Protoss who can warp in to defend them or counter attack en masse when someone commits too much army to take out an ancillary expo
The spread out expansions might make it too unfavourable for Protoss as the many chokes force P to play an AoE game of colossi instead of going warpgate heavy which is harder to split up with than a warpgate style.
The many chokepoints might make this too much of a Terran heaven
The many chokepoints might mean that bio gets absolutely murdered by both baneling/fungal and Protoss T3 AoE because there is no room to split any more
The amount of spread out expansions might make it very hard for Terran to defend them all as the least mobile race
The amount of spread out expos might be very favourable for Terran since they can mass orbital commands and throw away SCV's on this map, having a very powerful max
The fact that Terran can oversature and the other races can't might make smaller expos quite Terran favoured.
As I'm trying to make clear, it's impossible to tell if the balance is going to switch by altering mapmaking standards this much, and in which direction. Probably it will shift or at least force people to play differently than they normally would. Ling/infestor is probably not as good as muta/bane on this map. Most likely a templar based playstyle in PvT to both defend expos and use the many chokes is preferable to a colossus based playstyle, most likely more sentries are needed on this map than normally. TvP might see more usage of tanks, you can't really tell can you.
I did however already have some very fun PvZ, ZvP, ZvT and PvT games on it with people and so far it seems to generate very fun games with spread out expansions, base trades, counter attacks and positional wars. These were on older versions of the map so I can't really provide replays alas.
Anyway, it's published on NA as 'Heartbeat' by Oogkasje, and on EU as 'Heartbeat' by 'Runkk'.
<<quote 678001>>@kuollutrunkkau5: GoSorry, seems like its just me failing at using imgur.
I usually multiply the default X and Y resolution until it hits somewhere near 2000, select Ingame settings, and then use Gimp to convert the .tga to .png. It results in high quality images, where you can zoom in and study every tiny part of the map. <</quote>> Pretty much what I use except photoshop but it messes the colours up and creates artefacting. I use quite extensive lightning customization and the export map image renderer doesn't seem to capture them all, this map actually looks red with them for one.
I've gone through a lot of discussion with myself and other people about that, those ramps have gone from not there, to 3x3, to 6x3, to 6x3 with 3x3 being blocked by rocks and I'm still not sure of what the best is
The issue of them is that they are a luxury already, there are already many ways to attack without them. The idea is that you have 3 paths to enter the high ground on that side, one is of course larger but near a tower and near the bulk of his army most likely. Another is further away but very small so it can be defended quite cost effectively with some area control units, the third is again wider but much, much further away.
The map would be operable even if the tiny ramps didn't exist though, you don't have to go through them, there are many more avenues of attack.
Indeed, I tested it with a variety of units and it seems some-what fine for now, it's very skeletal and you can see what's under it pretty clearly.
If you clciked on the 'larger images' link you'd have found an imgur album with this:
http://i.imgur.com/2RJFO.jpg
Also, export map image for me seems to yield highly compressed and artefacted tga images that look like JPG-30 or something, no idea if there's some setting you can change that with but they don't look pretty here, they also distort the colours.
Yap, that's a point that's often raised about this idea. That's why I made the expos slowly be more sparse and sparse. One third is normal, the other third is 2g 6m, after that come the 1g and 6m patches. At that point, for both P and Z minerals should no longer be a concern enough to not plant down hatches and nexus for that extra gas. T generally wants to expand towards the centre to create a strong staging point with a PF. At least, that's the theory, not sure how it works out that way. I did do some 7gate blink all ins against Z to test if he could defend them and he held them pretty nicely on the more defensive expo, my PvZ training partner has yet to take the lowground expansion first though.
Hi, I'm an EU P/Z master player, my T is about diamond level I reckon, my TvP may be master level, that's about what I know about this game and how good I am at it.. this is the first map I made, I learnt the map editor specifically to test the 'fewer resources per base' hypothesis.
As some of you may or may not know, there's an hypothesis going on amongst mapmakers which observes the fact that because you about saturate 3 bases with 70 workers, and getting more than that is too detrimental to your max, you are never offered enough incentive to take more than 3 bases in SC2, thereby forcing your army to be less spread out, thereby creating 'blob vs blob' games.
The solution proposed is simple, give bases fewer resources. This map has a grand total of 20 expansions, some of which are however very small containing only things like 4 mineral patches or 3 mineral patches and a rich geyser, most however contain 6 minerals and 1 gas or 2 gas and 6 minerals. The main and natural however are standard expos as opening build orders may depend too much on a standard influx of resources.
Another thing added is many choke points, watch towers, and counter attack paths which further forces you to be more spread out, choke points can be held with a disadvantaged army in a superior position with forcefields, better concave, tanks, fungal, storm, nukes, until re-enforcements arrive.
Apart from that, some concious design decisions I made were:
All this is very experimental obviously and there are many issues that may come from this:
As I'm trying to make clear, it's impossible to tell if the balance is going to switch by altering mapmaking standards this much, and in which direction. Probably it will shift or at least force people to play differently than they normally would. Ling/infestor is probably not as good as muta/bane on this map. Most likely a templar based playstyle in PvT to both defend expos and use the many chokes is preferable to a colossus based playstyle, most likely more sentries are needed on this map than normally. TvP might see more usage of tanks, you can't really tell can you.
I did however already have some very fun PvZ, ZvP, ZvT and PvT games on it with people and so far it seems to generate very fun games with spread out expansions, base trades, counter attacks and positional wars. These were on older versions of the map so I can't really provide replays alas.
Anyway, it's published on NA as 'Heartbeat' by Oogkasje, and on EU as 'Heartbeat' by 'Runkk'.
some more and larger images...
Comments and feedback about the idea and/or execution greatly appreciated.