(24)Madness in the Barrens!

istvan921 · Feb 25, 2018

Madness a 24 player map finally at Hive i will give this a try

deepstrasz · Feb 25, 2018

@Ralle, as @stan0033 suggested on your profile, when you have time, please implement the more than 12 players option for map threads and search. Also what @mafe implied, the minimap does not show all 24 starting locations.

nightelfbuilder · Feb 25, 2018

Imagine playing with 23 people(excluding yourself) it is truly MADNESS, I'm just kidding, Good job on the map.

The Panda · Feb 25, 2018

I honestly think its kinda rushed when I opened it, it needs more love towards the terrain and doodads.

MysteryMaze · Feb 26, 2018

Here comes the first 24player map! Surely a madness!

OverClocked · Feb 26, 2018

You should give the middle players an advantage because it's quite unfair to be surrounded by enemies
Maybe give them some height advantage

WolfFarkas · Feb 27, 2018

OverClocked said:
You should give the middle players an advantage because it's quite unfair to be surrounded by enemies
Maybe give them some height advantage

Maybe for a balanced map, 224x224 should contain less amount of players
Esmerald Gardens ( 12 player Blizzard map) was designed in 192x192
So maybe 224x224 it would be for 16 player melee map. (the players in the edges)

Sugestion: remove inner players (between balance and being greedy, what does the competitive melee user choose: balance (chorus). In that way you will have a 16 player melee map, but with more balance.

Maybe 24 player maps are ment for a much larger size such 480x480 or maybe less but clarly 224x224 wich is and old size layout doesn´t seems to be for 24 players.

mine is just a sugestion, do as you wish.

Arrr · Feb 27, 2018

I usually place some flying blocking doodads behind bases that are in the middle (way too exposed to air).

Really appreciate the effort to put out a map for the community this fast; it may not be well terrained, but I know creating the layout and putting down the gameplay for such large maps is really hard.

Paillan · Mar 6, 2018

Just to be clear, this isn't an actual review, this is just a measure.
Being 1.29 in the PTR, I feel like it's smarter to hold the review on this one until patch is out.

Set to Pending
======================================================================

Always check/recheck the Map Submission Rules! (Map Submission Rules)

These will help make a better description:

Description Guide - Melee Maps
Map Description - Templates
Melee Map Description Generator v1.3
Map Description Generator [1.2]
BB Codes | HIVE

Screenshots could attract more players to download your work. Make the best of them.

A credits list is required where the names of the resource (models, skins, icons, spells, sound etc.) authors are mentioned along with the specific resource. It would be a luxury to have links leading to the used resources. Credits in the Quest Log would be appreciated.

A changelog in the first post would be helpful to reviewers and notify fans about the newest implementations to your map.

If you want more reviews, come here:
The Grand Review Exchange!

mafe · Mar 6, 2018

The Panda said:
I honestly think its kinda rushed when I opened it, it needs more love towards the terrain and doodads.

I agree, I had to make a compromise here. I dont have enough time to get a map to the visual level that is expected of a melee map. However, the PTR is out now, players are excited and want to see how warcraft with 24 players works. Why should they have to wait because I believe the map doesnt look good yet, when it has all that it necessary for gameplay? Adding thousand of doodads, variating the tiles etc barely affects the gameplay. I would not publish this map as it is in a few months from now, but given the hype surrounding the PTR and the potential for (further) revival of wc3, I think that letting people wait would be a missed chance. After all, noone has to play a map if he doesnt like it for whatever reason.

OverClocked said:
You should give the middle players an advantage because it's quite unfair to be surrounded by enemies
Maybe give them some height advantage

Ragnaros17 said:
Maybe for a balanced map, 224x224 should contain less amount of players
Esmerald Gardens ( 12 player Blizzard map) was designed in 192x192
So maybe 224x224 it would be for 16 player melee map. (the players in the edges)

Sugestion: remove inner players (between balance and being greedy, what does the competitive melee user choose: balance (chorus). In that way you will have a 16 player melee map, but with more balance.

Maybe 24 player maps are ment for a much larger size such 480x480 or maybe less but clarly 224x224 wich is and old size layout doesn´t seems to be for 24 players.

mine is just a sugestion, do as you wish.

I beileve both of you have a point here. However, I thought that the players in the middle also have the advantage of being able to reach multiple locations much faster (in particular the only central marketplace) than the players on the sides of the map. I tried to make the distances between middle and side players large enough so that in the initialy stages of the game, everyone should mostly have to direct neighbors to fight with (in an FFA) situation.
However, as I did mostly intend this map for team games, the positions of the teams overall should be equal. Look at the comon battle.net 4v4 maps like Cherryville or Deadland or Deathknell: It is the same, there are also players who are more exposed than other, but if you look at it from a team perspective, both teams still have equal starting positions overall.

The Panda · Mar 6, 2018

mafe said:
I agree, I had to make a compromise here. I dont have enough time to get a map to the visual level that is expected of a melee map. However, the PTR is out now, players are excited and want to see how warcraft with 24 players works. Why should they have to wait because I believe the map doesnt look good yet, when it has all that it necessary for gameplay? Adding thousand of doodads, variating the tiles etc barely affects the gameplay. I would not publish this map as it is in a few months from now, but given the hype surrounding the PTR and the potential for (further) revival of wc3, I think that letting people wait would be a missed chance. After all, noone has to play a map if he doesnt like it for whatever reason.

I beileve both of you have a point here. However, I thought that the players in the middle also have the advantage of being able to reach multiple locations much faster (in particular the only central marketplace) than the players on the sides of the map. I tried to make the distances between middle and side players large enough so that in the initialy stages of the game, everyone should mostly have to direct neighbors to fight with (in an FFA) situation.
However, as I did mostly intend this map for team games, the positions of the teams overall should be equal. Look at the comon battle.net 4v4 maps like Cherryville or Deadland or Deathknell: It is the same, there are also players who are more exposed than other, but if you look at it from a team perspective, both teams still have equal starting positions overall.

I understand your point but things that take time look better all I'm saying is take so time and slow down and make the maps environment more pleasing towards the player that's playing it, yes it may not effect the gameplay but it still make you look goo in a sense like "Oh that player takes his time and creates beauty" Something like that.. but that's just me you can take it or leave it.

WolfFarkas · Mar 6, 2018

About the beauty, a good trick is to design a combination of doodads, like skulls with smoke or rocks with cristals, or plants with mushrooms, what ever, and copy paste like a machine gun ta ta ta ta. Same goes for tererain, design a portion of tile mix and copy paste.

Knecht · Mar 7, 2018

I for one don't see a problem in uploading a 24 player map without doodads. While it's true that the terraining and doodads might need some attention, the players strive for a 24 player melee map with all the hype around 1.29. The map is playable and works well, that's the main point of a map (plus doodads can be added later, they're not really changing the gameplay). As for the size of the map - a 256x256 or 288x288 might be better for a 24 player map but mafe has worked around the 224x224 size by putting one exp for two players. Anything larger than 288x288 had a chaotic minimap imo and with some of the larger map sizes some info was lost too (ie solo units). The one thing that strikes me as weird are those red camps in the corners - they feel as if they're too far away and I'd probably make them the same as the border red mines (in terms of creeps.

Btw your map can be seen in 1v23 insane computers by funnywarcraft3

Map Designer · Mar 23, 2018

whats the bug? isnt starting location supposed to be random? or is it that the allies dnot start next to each other? :/

GrandSilver · Apr 26, 2018

Please, please fix the drops.... i did 12v12 with computer, i put T1 all 12 Orcs and all 12 Undeads, everything was mixed up, it would be impossible to play with real players 12v12, only maybe FFA..........

mafe · Apr 28, 2018

GrandSilver said:
Please, please fix the drops.... i did 12v12 with computer, i put T1 all 12 Orcs and all 12 Undeads, everything was mixed up, it would be impossible to play with real players 12v12, only maybe FFA..........

You mean spawns or drops? Anyway, I thought i had fixed it and as I stated in description, there seemed to a general bug with player spawns for 24 players on all maps, not just this one. Due to reallife, I currently cannot invest much time into mapping, but i hope to be able to fix it at some point.

Eregos · May 21, 2018

Did a 1v23 Insane AIs FFA on this map, seemed to work well. Took 2 hours to beat. Pretty straightforward, decent 24p map. I did have an issue observing a 7v8v8 insane AIs, two of them spawned in the rightside uppermost spawn for some reason, diasdvantaged one team a bunch.

Daffa · May 21, 2018

I find some of the creeps odd, especially the gold mine creeps. Having 1 weak 2 powerful is not a common thing in my opinion. Not a big deal though.

I also made a FFA play with AI, maybe you can get something out of it.

mafe · May 21, 2018

Eregos said:
Did a 1v23 Insane AIs FFA on this map, seemed to work well. Took 2 hours to beat. Pretty straightforward, decent 24p map. I did have an issue observing a 7v8v8 insane AIs, two of them spawned in the rightside uppermost spawn for some reason, diasdvantaged one team a bunch.

This seems to be a general bug which is not specific to this map. At least thats how it was at the time when I made and tested this map.

Daffa the Mage said:
I find some of the creeps odd, especially the gold mine creeps. Having 1 weak 2 powerful is not a common thing in my opinion. Not a big deal though.

I also made a FFA play with AI, maybe you can get something out of it.

Thanks, I will have a look at the video later on.
Some of the creeps are indeed weird. The reason here is that when 24 player maps where made first possible, there was still a limit on the number of total creep, which I reached here. So I had to use higher level creeps than usual, where I indeed would probably have 4-5 creeps for a spot with a combined level of 15. Here I had to make a compromise and went with 3 creeps.

Daffa · May 21, 2018

mafe said:
Thanks, I will have a look at the video later on.
Some of the creeps are indeed weird. The reason here is that when 24 player maps where made first possible, there was still a limit on the number of total creep, which I reached here. So I had to use higher level creeps than usual, where I indeed would probably have 4-5 creeps for a spot with a combined level of 15. Here I had to make a compromise and went with 3 creeps.

The creeps at the gold mine is the main concern here. There's 2 level 6 wendigo (was it right?) and one level 3 wendigo. Why not make 2 level 3 and 1 level 6 wendigo OR just have 3 six wendigo altogether or some way to have it not more the biggies and less the small ones.

deepstrasz · May 22, 2018

Hey, this is neat. Just gotta be extra careful on the nearing neutral camps so they don't help each other.
And some terrain height and doodad variation wouldn't hurt.

Approved.

mafe · May 22, 2018

Daffa the Mage said:
The creeps at the gold mine is the main concern here. There's 2 level 6 wendigo (was it right?) and one level 3 wendigo. Why not make 2 level 3 and 1 level 6 wendigo OR just have 3 six wendigo altogether or some way to have it not more the biggies and less the small ones.

Ok you have a point. However imho with 3x6 is equally unusual, and with 6+2x3 I feel that the camp might be almost too weak. And I also like a few small unusual gameplay details in my maps that (hopefully) dont influence balance

However, if I find the time to update the map, I will definitely look at these creeps. But that's unlikely to be the case at least until the world cup is over..

Eregos · May 23, 2018

Yes, I see your warning about the spawn placements being bugged. I've also now seen this on other maps so I think this is something blizzard must fix.

Daffa · May 23, 2018

The spawning issue doesn't seem to occur for me

ShYMs0n · Apr 29, 2020

This template is good, but please add some environment and other terrain. My eyes pains.

(24)Madness in the Barrens!

Madness in the Barrens! (Map)

Similar threads