|
(2)Niobe
4th August 2016
Version 1.1 Niobe
-Side path changed to flat ground and widened. Each path has 3 trees.
-Side base moved and is now 6 mineral patches, no gas. Previously was 7 patches and a gas.
-Corner expos at 5/11 o clock have 1 extra mineral patch for a total of 8.
-Unwalkable Rock doodad added outside naturals.
-2 trees added to centre.
-Larger overlord safe zone near centre.
This is a 1v1 conversion of my 2v2 map Tantalus.
Niobe is a daughter of Tantalus.
Overview
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pxRCP43.jpg)
Overview
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IlGyzoF.jpg)
Annotated changes pic
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jBoProM.jpg)
Download (2)Niobe from this page
Link to Tantalus tl page
Changelog
+ Show Spoiler +29th January 2016 Version 0.9 Niobe 31st January 2016 Version 0.91 Niobe -Wider middle (asphalt diamond) -Wider ramps into 3 and 9 o clock bases 4th February 2016 Version 0.92 Niobe -Tweak to walling on lowground below the centre base large ramp 8th February 2016 Version 0.93 Niobe -Smaller centre base, 1 less ramp in -Wider path around the centre base -Resources in the Main changed (start location moved 1 tile sideways) -Added 2 fully unwalkable tiles behind the main mineral line -Added 2 unbuildable tiles behind the main mineral line Main detail picture + Show Spoiler +27th May 2016 Version 1.0 Niobe -Forward bases changed to low ground 4th August 2016 Version 1.1 Niobe -Side path changed to flat ground and widened. Each path has 3 trees. -Side base moved and is now 6 mineral patches, no gas. Previously was 7 patches and a gas. -Corner expos at 5/11 o clock have 1 extra mineral patch for a total of 8. -Unwalkable Rock doodad added outside naturals. -2 trees added to centre. -Larger overlord safe zone near centre. Old versions (0.9) + Show Spoiler +(0.91) + Show Spoiler +(0.93) + Show Spoiler +(1.0) + Show Spoiler +
|
I dont think I like the fact that the main mineral line can be sieged. Especially since the siege tanks can be pretty far away.
|
Nope, tanks are out of range to hit workers. But you can hit things that are behind the main min line.
Incidentally, tanks positioned in the main cannot hit a townhall or gas that is built at the corner expo either.
|
I like the little hills where you can place a little bunch of stuff maybe hidden in high ground and gaining defense advantage.
|
Looks super nice. Thank you! I like the high-ground formations in the middle to allow some creative abuse of terrain.
|
On January 30 2016 08:03 CardinalAllin wrote:
Nope, tanks are out of range to hit workers. But you can hit things that are behind the main min line.
Incidentally, tanks positioned in the main cannot hit a townhall or gas that is built at the corner expo either.
Really? Huh. Okay then. Maybe I was judging the distances incorrectly from the map image.
|
For me it looks like PvT will be hard since terran can take so many expansion with tanks. :O
|
Japan11286 Posts
That back expansion is an interesting concept. I like it. Strategically, I think players will still go for the 5 and 11 expos because it is nearer, is on the high ground and and has one choke.
The center looks a bit dull though. (yeah I know I'm nitpicking now. xd)
|
1) Wall of entrance
2) Fly expansion to the back expansion
3) Feel like Boxer
4) ????
5) Profit
|
Like this! As with loads of your maps Mr. CardinalAllin, Tantalus gets regular play with friends during our weekly craft nights.
Is terran being able to lift into the backdoor/sideways expansion actually imba?
Also wish the middle was a bit sexier than just rocks (something cool with buildings?)... but really like the non-linear expo options available. Good work.
|
Looks good. I've played the 2v2 version enough, I'd like to play this. The multiple expansion patterns is really nice.
|
United States10230 Posts
consider making the middle bases in the map with the awkward double ramp into one bigger ramp.
consider making the 3/9 with bigger ramps. this will give more counter play to bases on the side.
the double bases in the top right/bottom left are meh to me. i like the idea of having a base back there, but i dislike that there are two bases essentially right next to each other. i guess this is really good for zergs, who on traditional 2 player maps, do not have access to 4 base 6 hatch macro play and usually rely on the old 3 base 5 hatch style.
|
This seems mega Terran favoured in TvP. You get four bases so easily, and then an easy fifth as you do a 4 base doom push.
None the less, I will not judge it with certainty until I have played on it.
But the third base is exposed, so you can attack the Terran when he tries to take it, at least.
Maybe nexus first to get an advantage in the early midgame could work. That would delay the third base, or kill the Terran if he tries to take it anyway.
Edit: Carriers are also very strong on the map, so it might be okay.
I like that there are many paths. It's not just an open center like on most maps. This is good for Terran and for Protoss. Terran can use tanks and mines in the choke points. Protoss can counter attack, forcing the Terran to walk longer paths to react, and Protoss can also fly around with carriers.
Could we get some showmatches or tournaments on this map? It's very interesting
|
31st January 2016
Version 0.91 Niobe
-Wider middle (asphalt diamond)
-Wider ramps into 3 and 9 o clock bases
(0.91) (edit: now outdated)
+ Show Spoiler +
Thanks guys.
@RoomOfMush You need to practice your TvT for tank rangefinding 
@joust85 Whats your iccup name? Maybe I could obs sometime.
c3rberUs "Strategically, I think players will still go for the 5 and 11 expos because it is nearer, is on the high ground and and has one choke. The center looks a bit dull though. (yeah I know I'm nitpicking now. xd)"
Depends what race, matchup and strategy but yeah I think I know what you mean. Protoss will take that base as their 3rd in PvT most likely for example.
Nitpicking is encouraged. The mid is a bit better now hopefully.
@duke91 and joust85, terran floating, I dont think its op but could be quite funny, (maybe even a viable 3rd base for Terran in TvP with a dropship).
@FlashFTW Im gunna keep the double ramp into the centre base for now. I agree about the 3+9 o clock wider ramps though obviously.
The map has/had lots of thin ramps and tighter paths as it was a 2v2 map. I wanted 1 player to be able to hold off 2 enemies sort of. So it doesnt transition perfectly to 1v1.
@vOdToasT If Protoss has to rely on nexus first then that is very bad. I agree that taking a 3rd for Terran in TvP is slightly harder than normal and Protoss has a chance to exchange units at this timing. But terran could build up to 5 base a bit too easily after that. As you say Carriers are a good choice here. (Recall into the main is easier too).
The two changes for this version help PvT/weaken mech a bit.
|
First, I don't think there's any need to start tweaking the map until a good amount of games have been played on it. I liked how the middle was originally as it punishes a player more for having their army out of position. But, it does make sense that it was done with PvT in mind. In the old version Protoss probably would have a hard time engaging in the middle of the map. I just think the original middle is quite interesting for all the other matchups, and it could work out in PvT too.
I do share the concern with the 1/7 bases. Its going to allow terran to get 4 vs 4 base situations vs both Z and P. I understand that's not always how the game will play out, but the fact that T can place tanks at the edge of their main to support moving their army to the 1/7 positions is a little bit troublesome. Think about Destination, except here T gets 2 bases instead of 1.
Possible solutions
A) make the 3 ramped hills smaller so the position isn't so easily defensible
B) shift the low ground base @ 7 up and the low ground base @ 1 down (away from the mains)
|
On February 01 2016 00:02 CardinalAllin wrote:@RoomOfMush You need to practice your TvT for tank rangefinding
When you play P tank range seems to grow each day.
|
@fearthequeen
Turning this into a 1v1 map was just for a laugh originally so I didnt bother doing any other changes (but did do basic mining re-tests) and posted it. But then I guess it actually could be alright for 1v1 so thats when I decided its worth doing some specific changes, hence the new mid and ramps. Basically I should have done these things in the first place. I think its properly playable now so yeah I agree, not doing any more tweaks for the moment.
I would say the mid was too tight for ZvT vs mech/mech switch as well as PvT so this new mid is for the better and is necessary. There are still many obstacles to negotiate in the middle in the wider picture, especially when compared to other popular maps, so I think not too much has been lost.
Regarding the 1/7 bases (the empty mains and nats);
I dont think they are a concern particularly in the way you describe. The 4/5 base terran scenario I was talking about was main, nat, centre base, 5/11 o clock corner base, and 3/9 o clock side base.
The two people talking about floating to 1/7 o clock I dont think were being totally serious as a genuine problem. Maybe I misread it but I think duke91 was fully joking and saying float it out as a natural for giggles. And then joust85 was like "actually just thinking about it, is it imba or not? Nah prob not but just checking, nah its not".
Terran placing tanks in the main to support taking the empty main is not really a problem in my view. You might place 2 or 3 tanks in this manner and its an acceptable good move to do so. But if the enemy breaks the army on the low ground, they can easily get in and trash the empty nat. They wont take many hits from tanks in the main as the distance is large. Its a relatively minor thing about Destination being good for mech. The more significant things are:
-the thin vertical shape of the map boundary whereas this map is full 128x128,
-the small chokes for easy map split, whereas this map has the wider ramp side bases now etc,
-the number of total bases is 12, whereas this map is 14.
These things and the way they interact leads to strong mech. Im saying stuff you already know ofcourse, erm, on this map tanks in the main cant protect the empty mains/nat as effectively as they can on Destination anyway due to the distance. They cant cover nearly so well as on Desti, and I dont think its directly a problem anyway or on Desti either really.
With the strength of carriers on this map, they might be able to kill 2 terran bases in quick succession (the empty main/nat) and strongly pressure the main straight after. Or Protoss can take the enemy empty main/nat for himself, and use carriers to simultaneously protect these 2 new expos while attacking the terran main.
What I mean is, sometimes having 2 bases close to each other can actually be a weakness for terran when facing carriers in particular, and certainly with this maps layout. But there are other expansion patterns that Terran might have used. He might go to 5 bases with main, nat, centre base, then take the empty main and nat. I think this is probably the scenario you are talking about more. Well, this would allow P to potentially get up to 8 bases by taking both side bases. But anyway there are still 2 fairly wide paths to attack through as Protoss (either side of the 3 ramp hill) if that need arises. And, the amount of space terran has to hold would be large enough and difficult enough for it to be balanced imo.
But Terran will probably be able to kill the nexus at the centre base with tanks sieged in the middle of the map on the low ground, even while being attacked by carriers. Later, for terran to continue and kill the empty main/nat, his army would be very far from his bases. So the carrier counter attack threat would be incredibly high. Enough that Protoss would probably be able to hold his new main base at the least (1/7 o clock) and quite probably save his new nat too. So I can see Protoss being on 5 base (2 of which are fresh, main+nat is roughly dry) with a full carrier pack having lost 1 base and absorbed terrans main waves of attacks. And with the layout of the map and everything I would say the situation is balanced. Thats with your terran expansion pattern of taking empty main and nat as his 4th and 5th base.
As for ZvT; well Zerg can get up to 4 bases like on a 4 player map here and have viable future expos beyond that, while at the same time have options to attack Terran at good timings and I believe can keep Terran in check relatively well (as good as the average map atleast). Being 128x128 and the consequences of that is a help. There are good late game drop opportunities into the terran main like with recall here too which shouldnt be underestimated as a threat even if not utilised. Something worth mentioning is that guardians are slightly better choice on this map than on others as they can bounce from one nat to the other fast(ish) and protected. Zerg will be able to get to 4 base vs terran reliably well on Niobe. The only thing Im a bit worried about in that regard is the space outside the natural. Its quite small and the hill means a mech switch contain will be a pain. But Im confident zerg will be able to handle that, and be able to clear out the contain with darkswarm ling lurk and/or hydra, maybe even a couple of guardians if used earlier optionally.
So what about your scenario but in ZvT where terran takes main, nat, centre base, then the empty main as his 4th? Yep that is an option. I dont see a balance problem if Terran does this. The distance is far enough by ground that its not overly easy, and if zerg were to drop the main, it would take lots of time for units to get back round to defend etc.
Getting 2 base for free instead of just 1. Well yeah but this is kind of like a 4 player map and the biggest effect is making ZvT better for Zerg, and secondarily making ZvP better for Zerg. Im very reluctant to change that, I think its good in both cases, and is pretty cool overall. Ofcourse this is a result of being a 2v2 map conversion rather than a design decision but Im more than happy to keep it this way, so I wont be moving those bases.
About making the 3 ramp hills smaller, this is a great idea and certainly something to keep in mind. Its definitely something Id do if its needed.
Hmm, this comment is taking ages, even though Im trying to rush it a bit. hmm, hopefully answered your comment, I rambled about something atleast.
|
I was imagining Terran taking the 7/1 main and nat as his 3rd and 4th, placing tanks along the edge of the main to both defend the natural and help support an army on the ground below leading to the 7/1. Pressing low ground tanks against the cliff with supporting tanks in the main above, laying mines in front, depots and turrets in the gaps of terrain. I see some of it is unbuildable, but most of it looks buildable.
I just feel like it will give Terran a faster than usual 4 bases without really having to do anything aggressive. Perhaps the large air space to cover for those 4 bases is the one thing Protoss/Zerg can abuse.
Mostly I'm just interested to play/watch some good games on this map. Honestly its the most interesting map I've seen from you so far.
|
United States10230 Posts
i see an interesting play in ZvP.
Zergs get their desired 4 gas bases pretty easily and can control the skies with muta/scourge.
Protoss now have a decent map to go corsair/reaver since clustered bases allow for good dropping patterns (see andromeda for really solid sair/reaver).
|
@fearthequeen, yeah so I was talking about the correct tactic, and yes it is mostly buildable terrain. I thought you meant as 4th and 5th base, not as 3rd and 4th. So now Ill address that scenario. Yes I think it is possible for T to take it as a 3rd in TvP, and as I said in a previous comment, maybe even viable with a dropship. Doing it with a droship will be hard (and not OP) and will be awesome so Im happy to keep that. Doing it with pure ground and no dropship will be very hard or will take plenty of time to build up enough units. And then once you have secured the bases and got them running, you arent actually in an amazing position anyway. This is because Protoss can attack through the two paths (either side of the 3 ramp hill), and if he manages to break the ground army on the low ground, they can easily get in and trash the empty nat. They wont take many hits from tanks in the main as the distance is large. Heres an important thing; depending on how terran positions his tanks, if his low ground army dies then his 2 new bases will be exposed and the workers wont have anywhere to escape to. Terran might have put a few tanks in the new main (1/7 o clock) and he might have walled on the high ground, so he could retreat workers there and hold possibly, but that would weaken his frontline if in the earlier part of the game. If Terran has dropship then this becomes much more feasible obviously. But its going to be challenging and balanced.
So Protoss potentially can kill 2 base worth of workers following a successful frontal attack. Compare this to Circuit Breaker for example where:
-it is harder for Protoss to engage (attack the 4th base),
-harder for Protoss to retreat and swing around to attack the 3rd through the small hill if he cant break the 4th, whereas on Niobe you can retreat from one path and just go around the 3 ramp hill and attack through the path on the other side of this small hill which might be less protected,
-much easier for Terran to save his workers,
-and much easier for Terran to handle/manage the Protoss army in general, if a position gets lost, retaking it etc. Protoss can develop an opportunity more easily on Niobe (with this expansion pattern) than on Circuit Breaker.
Yep the air space T needs to cover is large. To be fair the ground space is significant too though. Terran would need to hold vs both of the paths either side of the 3 ramp hill. This is a very difficult task in the early mid game when terran is on 2 base. Protoss can easily use a 10 goon and 3 zealots in a shuttle type of attack to strongly delay. Realistically a double shuttle mid game attack is on the cards too (stx style with a reaver in one and zealots in the other with 13 or more goons).
eg Trap vs Sharp Neo Sniper Ridge http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/120300_Sharp_vs_Trap/vod
But if terran is able to get those 4 bases and hold fine etc, then yeah he has a nice frontline to sit behind. Again though, probably still less safe than on Circuit Breaker just based on the number and size of ground chokes (3 medium chokes compared to Circuits 3 small 1 medium). And then you add the air space consideration too and what Protoss is able to do in the meantime etc etc. You do get 4 gas here though and an extra mineral patch. But I think thats ok when you account for the difficulty of taking them in the first place, especially as carriers are likely and the bases Protoss gets in the meantime are all gas too etc.
To be honest if Terran wants to expand in the pattern you describe Id think getting up to 4 dropships and keeping all units on the highground in the main and new main would actually be the best way. T would move out by ground to secure the lowground area quite late using this method. Pretty unusual but it could work, a bit of offensive dropship use earlier on to help get you there.
Honestly its the most interesting map I've seen from you so far.
Ah thats great. I cant really take credit, its more of a happy accident.
@FlashFTW When muta scourge style is more common, then generally sair reaver is less common (if its a somewhat standard ground map). Generally. Here, I would say muta scourge is definitely strong in ZvP and will be common, and therefore sair reaver might be discouraged a bit. The other thing is that if Zerg goes hydra anyway, he can spill hydras out of the entrance to the new nat (2/8 o clock) and they will somewhat cover the main as the game progresses. So this weakens the reaver attack opportunities a bit as well. The other thing is that scourge on their own can quickly be redirected to protect the other main/nat. This means a shuttle could find itself suddenly trapped and intercepted by scourge whereas when playing a standard 4 player map where the main/nats are in opposite corners, Protoss knows he has a longer window where scourge have to travel some distance. So it works both ways sort of.
But yeah, if Protoss is able to find a gap and start exploiting it, he may very well be able to develop it faster as he can bounce into the Zerg main etc like you suggest. I just think that getting that initial opportunity is actually quite hard to begin with. But sair reaver is certainly viable on this map. The reason being they can be used very effectively defensively too. Protoss can take 4 base vs Zerg in the same expansion pattern that fearthequeen was talking about Terran doing in TvP. (main, nat, empty main, empty nat).
Hmm, normally I dont go for maps with air gaps into the main, but I am starting to warm to it. Its kind of hard to stop seeing it as a 2v2 map for me. Im gunna be hosting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ftsISiN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2D0rKQS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WbaUkAH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/busUfYR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EVqMKSH.jpg)
