|
|
|
A comment on a chat channel showed concern about Terran contains.
My reply:
The area outside the nat is buildable but the hill and one of the paths isnt. The paths are deceptively large, and the ramps are very wide. The idea is that the defender can make a large arc while the attacker gets funnelled if top vs bottom spawns. The defender can also use the hill to stall or flank.
If left vs right spawns then the terran has to fight in a large open space, and is vulnerable to a flank from the hill. If the defender is pushed back to his nat, he can still create a large defensive arc in order to break out. Further, the natural has quite a long choke, so even if the attacker reaches there, he is still not yet actually hitting the townhall which buys a little more time (very important).
Its also hard for the terran to take a 3rd base, so his attack is less potent as it cant transition as easily. Protoss can take a 3rd base and can choose to expand away from the terran, and the eggs help protect this base so while terran is setting up the contain, Protoss is able to keep a stronger economy for longer than usual, so he can choose to play a more management style where you keep backing up, buying more time, and then flood with units later. Probes can potentially escape as there are 2 ramps into each 3rd base.
But yes terran factory heavy timing attacks should be viable here as on other maps, and will hopefully be somewhat scary; just as they should be! btw do you know the cliche of New Map...Siege Tank imba? You kinda fell into that trap haha.
|
 Looks a lot like FS again, and Crown and Sceptre as well ^^. Just my observation. Looks pretty fun though!
|
Take 1 Circuit Breaker, vigorously whisk in a pinch of FS and Toad Stone, and then gently fold in 8 eggs for a hit of protein.
+ Show Spoiler + Honestly at the moment Im just worried about whether or not the donkeys are out of place, apparently that is a potential problem on some maps. That and gorillas dancing the macarena or something.
|
Another TvP map 
edit: hmm I looked a bit closer and it propably isn't half as bad as I first thought. 3rd is not super easy for terrans
|
On April 28 2017 23:54 Piste wrote:Another TvP map edit: hmm I looked a bit closer and it propably isn't half as bad as I first thought. 3rd is not super easy for terrans
Nope, sorry, too late. That counts as the 2nd siege tank imba comment.
|
This looks like a ripoff of a map by CardinalAllin, I hope you give him credit!
+ Show Spoiler + I know it's u
|
It doesnt look to be a very brave map. There is nothing "special" or "outstanding" about it. Thats not necessarily a bad thing though.
Perhaps you could make the 3/9 and 12/6 differ from each other? Right now they are exactly the same. That may give players a choice of 3rd perhaps.
Here is a little suggestion, maybe you like it:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N7bIzLq.jpg)
Remove the center expansion and add 4 smaller expansions to the center. Mineral only or with reduced resources.
|
I would like to this map on some other tileset because Cardinal made too much badlands, maybe ash? Looks like Toad Stone/FS mix.
|
The base layout is more like Beltway/Wind and Cloud than anything else. The overall architecture has some good potential too imo. Of course most would rather cry "contain" than adapt their play to the architecture. RoomofMush's suggestion is interesting too because that's what Beltway has, but with the mineral onlys closer to the corners of the map.Neo Beltway
Anyway, thanks for the map Card.
|
On April 29 2017 04:00 RoomOfMush wrote:It doesnt look to be a very brave map. There is nothing "special" or "outstanding" about it. Thats not necessarily a bad thing though. Perhaps you could make the 3/9 and 12/6 differ from each other? Right now they are exactly the same. That may give players a choice of 3rd perhaps. Here is a little suggestion, maybe you like it: Remove the center expansion and add 4 smaller expansions to the center. Mineral only or with reduced resources.
So what is wrong about expansions being similar? At least that makes them balanced :D
Also changing the center expansion to 4 smaller minerals onlys would make them practically useless untill the map is mined out elsewhere (except maybe for terran in TvP)
I like the original design more
|
On April 29 2017 18:44 Piste wrote:
So what is wrong about expansions being similar? At least that makes them balanced :D
Nothing is wrong with it. Its just wasted potential. You might as well make 2 of them different. The map is still balanced but there is more variety.
On April 29 2017 18:44 Piste wrote:
Also changing the center expansion to 4 smaller minerals onlys would make them practically useless untill the map is mined out elsewhere (except maybe for terran in TvP)
And what is the middle expansion? Its even less likely to be taken. How often do you see pros take the center expansions on FS?
But I propose, that four smaller mineral-only expansion could see a little bit more play. A terran may take it while pushing out or when protecting their 3rd. A zerg may take it in the late game or in split-map situations. I dont think its a bad idea.
|
Just because an expansion is rarely taken does not mean it is a bad idea or redundant. What central expansions like the one on FS do is provide some resources to fight over in late game, potentially allowing a player to break an even map split etc. If it is rarely ever taken, then because few games ever reach that stage.
Replacing them with some mineral onlies does not change that basic premise.
However, there is a pretty general problem that idea runs into: It is generally ill-advised to have expansions so close together that tanks can shell more than one of them at once. So if that idea were to be implemented, those expansions should better be farther out, maybe facing those ridges.
|
Lets start with looking at how Circuit Breaker could have better gameplay in my opinion.
1. Left vs Right spawns causes bad TvP games in my opinion.
2. The cardinal bases are all lowground (too advantageous to attackers in this case for my tastes, doesnt encourage splitting up of forces to defend separate locations as much).
3. The 3 and 9 o clock bases have only 1 entrance (no chance to retreat workers which means games are less interesting imo).
4. Im not a huge fan of the ease to go up to 4 bases,
5. or the quite large discrepancy in rush distances.
With this map I wanted to:
1. Make a very balanced solid standard 1v1 map.
2. Allow Protoss to 'expand away' from terran, and doing so to be a fairly evenly balanced option. In other words its not too massively easier to expand in one direction than the other.
3. Make ZvT a bit more interesting by providing more potential choices of 3rd base for Zerg and for this base to be a touch more defensible.
4. Make terran 3rd a bit trickier inline with current popularity of maps like this. (But still for the map to be timeless hopefully, and not too hard).
5. A bit of spice, but not crazy.
6. Complex attackers/defenders interactions with chokes and hills.
WIth those things, the map basically designed itself, I just had to build it.
Thankyou for the replies guys, I have been thinking about them a lot. Rather than replying individually right now, I thought Id write this design concept type post. Now you have seen the map and slept on it, I wonder if thoughts have changed since first impressions.
|
On April 29 2017 03:48 bITt.mAN wrote:
This looks like a ripoff of a map by CardinalAllin, I hope you give him credit!
I dont know who that is but Cardinal Alan gave me tips.
On April 29 2017 04:00 RoomOfMush wrote:
It doesnt look to be a very brave map. There is nothing "special" or "outstanding" about it. Thats not necessarily a bad thing though.
I agree that it is close to 'standard'. I definitely think that is not a bad thing. The reason Ive made a standard map is because I feel it is what is needed.
Where have all the people gone that just want to see a standard map being used? This is what I craved, and now I make one and hardly get any comments.
But going back to the quote above ("nothing brave or special about the map"): to be fair, this map does have the eggs blocking the ramps into the 3rds. Well that is actually a big deal.
Zerg can use this to take a 3rd base in a completely different way than normal in ZvT. Its huge.
Perhaps you could make the 3/9 and 12/6 differ from each other? Right now they are exactly the same. That may give players a choice of 3rd perhaps.
This is a strange one. If the bases are different, that doesnt give you more of a choice, its actually more likely that you will want to take a certain base, and either can or cant due to spawns. So you end up with either the base you want more or forced to take the base you want less due to luck of spawns.
By having the expansions close to exactly the same like they are here, specifically enhances choice of 3rd base. Thats one of the main thrusts behind this map. I could have thrown in mineral onlies like on Circuit Breaker, or made 2 bases at top and bottom like on Toad Stone, but Ive resisted precisely because I want players to be able to expand in either direction viably and for the difficulty and the result to be relatively the same.
Here is a little suggestion, maybe you like it: Remove the center expansion and add 4 smaller expansions to the center. Mineral only or with reduced resources.
Thankyou for making a picture, that was cool of you. The centre base is for lategame, for mined out mapsplits. Its not meant to be actually mined from much but its presence influences gameplay. If you had 4 bases in the middle like in your picture then terran would be too strong. Hell just having the 1 base in the middle like at the moment already favours terran if anything. I have been tempted to remove the centre base several times. But it can be very good to have a stalemate breaker base present on a map. Even if it never actually gets touched in a match, it still influences that match in a way that is positive for gameplay. It encourages players to keep interacting through unit exchange rather than camping, and encourages territory control. (discourages stalemates).
|
On April 29 2017 06:36 outscar wrote:
I would like to this map on some other tileset because Cardinal made too much badlands, maybe ash? Looks like Toad Stone/FS mix.
Badlands looks quite good, I like it at the moment. Im also kind of plugged in with it currently (unintentional pun) so I know its quirks quite well and have these new ramps etc. (which y'all can use easily with this palette http://www.panschk.de/mappage/comments.php?mapid=4873 )
On April 29 2017 06:52 fearthequeen wrote:The base layout is more like Beltway/Wind and Cloud than anything else. The overall architecture has some good potential too imo. Of course most would rather cry "contain" than adapt their play to the architecture. RoomofMush's suggestion is interesting too because that's what Beltway has, but with the mineral onlys closer to the corners of the map. Neo BeltwayAnyway, thanks for the map Card.
Cheers. I agree Beltway and Wind and Cloud are both axial maps with cardinal bases. And thats all you were saying. For fun I will talk a bit about why those maps arent as good as this one smiley face
+ Show Spoiler + Links to tlpd
Both of them have low ground cardinal bases and only 1 entrance into each. This makes the attacker too strong. It means the person who expanded just loses, he doesnt get to retreat, mount a new defensive line and maybe make a comeback (good, fun, satisfying gameplay). Instead its 'nope you didnt hold, you lose all your workers, your reinforcements die, game is essentially over'.
Beltway
Beltway has no terrain or chokes to interact with to take a 3rd base. Its just uniform width paths in both directions (and its unbuildable). This exacerbates the previous point hugely.
The nat entrance on Beltway is fully open; attacker gets a large boost. If the enemy contains you outside the nat, you cant push them back to get a bit of breathing room in a meaningful way because the attacker (doing a contain) can just pull back a tiny bit, but doesnt have to actually concede a strategically important area. Its just one big open space. So there is no leeway or safety for the players to operate in, which again leads to brutal and frustrating gameplay.
Beltway was altered in an attempt to make it less of a terran only map, but Neo Beltway was still a terran only map.
Wind and Cloud
You will notice that 'New Wind and Cloud' actually changed the 3 and 9 o clock bases to have 2 entrances (but not the 12 and 6 o clock for some reason). It was a good change. Unfortunately the bases are still low ground and overlooked by two massive hills so the defender is very boxed in and will lose the base in short fashion anyway. But not all maps have to be the same, so thats fine, its just that for Clay Fields I definitely dont want that kind of gameplay.
Wind and Cloud layout concept is great, but a few tweaks in execution would make it a lot more fun in my opinion. eg contains are too strong outside the nat, the hills should be smaller and less able to shoot into the mains. Bigger gaps between the hills, smaller walls in the centre.
Its about space distribution basically. Some zones should be smaller while others should be bigger.
Could redesign so that there are bases on the 4 larger hills and then delete the expos at 12 and 6 o clock and make ramp size adjustments and add 2 small ramps into 12/6 o clock for an alternative path. Taking a 3rd base on Wind and Cloud is hard. Its also quite hard on Clay Fields but I think its easier overall but also easier to execute the move out to claim the 3rd in stages as risk develops. And I think its easier on Clay Fields to manage the situation if it gets hairy, to be able to retreat/mount a comeback if needed.
btw, having a slightly harder 3rd than what we have got used to is fine. When you have terrans taking 4 bases on Circuit Breaker with only 2 facs you have to say enough is enough at some point.
Going back to Wind and Cloud, lesser details like top left path outside nat has 2 very small unwalkable rocks while top right has 2 large unwalkable rocks.
But anyway thats enough of that.
|
On May 05 2017 18:48 Jukado wrote:
I agree that it is close to 'standard'. I definitely think that is not a bad thing. The reason Ive made a standard map is because I feel it is what is needed.
Where have all the people gone that just want to see a standard map being used? This is what I craved, and now I make one and hardly get any comments.
Its not about a standard map being bad, but being boring. Boring can be good, it just doesnt warrant much in terms of comments. People look at the map and dont see much room for discussion and thus you dont get many comments.
On May 05 2017 18:48 Jukado wrote:
But going back to the quote above ("nothing brave or special about the map"): to be fair, this map does have the eggs blocking the ramps into the 3rds. Well that is actually a big deal.
That is true. Although eggs are not that new and special anymore. It still is a little bit more special than FS...
On May 05 2017 18:48 Jukado wrote:
This is a strange one. If the bases are different, that doesnt give you more of a choice, its actually more likely that you will want to take a certain base, and either can or cant due to spawns. So you end up with either the base you want more or forced to take the base you want less due to luck of spawns.
By having the expansions close to exactly the same like they are here, specifically enhances choice of 3rd base. Thats one of the main thrusts behind this map. I could have thrown in mineral onlies like on Circuit Breaker, or made 2 bases at top and bottom like on Toad Stone, but Ive resisted precisely because I want players to be able to expand in either direction viably and for the difficulty and the result to be relatively the same.
I understand where you are coming from and what you say makes sense in a certain way. But sometimes little imbalances are what makes the game interesting. The game would certainly be more balanced if all races had exactly the same units with the same values and same abilities and whatnot. It would just not be quite as interesting that way.
But of course, it is your map and your decision.
On May 05 2017 18:48 Jukado wrote:
If you had 4 bases in the middle like in your picture then terran would be too strong. Hell just having the 1 base in the middle like at the moment already favours terran if anything.
I dont know much about that but I trust your superior experience and knowledge on the matter. One could always think of other ways to weaken terrans though. Maybe small patches of unbuildable terrain on the outskirts of the main bases or something like that.
|
On April 29 2017 18:44 Piste wrote:
So what is wrong about expansions being similar? At least that makes them balanced :D
Lets delve into this a little. Its a 4 player map. We have got top vs bottom spawns or left vs right spawns (or cross spawns ofcourse).
Taking the 12/6 o clock means you have 3 bases in a triangle shape and have a buildable path to the 3rd, and the terrain features.
Taking the 3/9 o clock means you have 3 bases in a straight line, you dont have the buildable path, and the terrain features are very different too.
So while the bases are similar in that they are all highground, with 2 thin ramps and have same resource amounts and egg blocks, to actually take them leads to very different setups. Depending on personal taste, this variety is either a small amount or a large amount. For me its quite large. I personally am not looking for more variety than the current design for this particular map. I think its already significant, but you guys have got me thinking and Im looking critically at the design to try and see potential changes.
A way to demonstrate that the bases are already very different (even if they appear fundamentally similar in some ways) is terran expansion pattern vs protoss. It is quite likely that Terran is going to want to take 12/6 o clock as their 3rd vs Protoss no matter what the spawns are. Im not saying this is a good or a bad thing, just that the bases arent that similar really. The inherent nature of the 3 bases forming either a triangle or a straight line is large on its own, add in the terrain features and thats plenty of variety for my tastes this time around I suspect.
So in a way I disagree with Piste that the bases are 'balanced', again just due to the inherent nature of a 4 player axial map (even though he is sticking up for me lol). But Im being overly nit-picky, basically yes I agree with the overall point that the current setup helps make the bases relatively similar, especially compared to quite a few other maps. Im just using the discussion to expand my thoughts around the ideas.
Also changing the center expansion to 4 smaller minerals onlys would make them practically useless untill the map is mined out elsewhere (except maybe for terran in TvP) I like the original design more
As I explained in an earlier post, the current single centre base is not going to be mined from in most games, and thats fine. If there were 4 centre bases, they would see more use (by terran). Terran would sometimes take one of these bases as his 4th (ie quite early on actually). Ah so we agree on that. But yeah Id say the current single base could also sort of crudely be described as 'practically useless until the map is mined out elsewhere'. Though I do have to clarify as I said in the earlier post, the single centre base still affects the game in positive ways just by being there.
So yeah, glad you like the map, cheers!
This post inadvertently answers RoomOfMush too in some parts.
|
On May 01 2017 05:16 RoomOfMush wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it. Its just wasted potential. You might as well make 2 of them different. The map is still balanced but there is more variety.
Hmm, well the main matchup and race that is affected by being able to expand in either direction is Protoss in PvT. I want Protoss to be able to expand in a straight line here (even if it is a bit trickier, but thats almost always the case on axial maps). Id say that the 2 thin ramps and egg blocks etc contribute to that viability to some extent. But Im definitely entertaining the idea. The options would probably be to either make 3/6 o clock easier to defend, or to make 12/6 o clock harder to defend. Im not sure I can think of a good way to do either of those though. But a change to 2 of these bases could potentially make the map even more balanced actually (balanced in terms of different viable expansion patterns). I cant fault you that a bit of variety is good.
On May 01 2017 05:16 RoomOfMush wrote:
And what is the middle expansion? Its even less likely to be taken. How often do you see pros take the center expansions on FS?
But I propose, that four smaller mineral-only expansion could see a little bit more play. A terran may take it while pushing out or when protecting their 3rd. A zerg may take it in the late game or in split-map situations. I dont think its a bad idea.
Yep I agree about the single centre base seeing less use than if there were 4 centre expos. This would mainly be from terran. Its pretty hard for zerg to take a quite open centre base in general but yeah they could theoretically take 1 or 2 in the late game. Overall they would give terran too big of an edge in my opinion but as you said in a later post, I could make other nerfs to terran to compensate. hmm, that would not be easy, might start heading out into more and more experimental gameplay. I dont think I would have the skill to be able to balance that, look at how Neo Beltway wasnt able to achieve it even. Might be fun to try though. At the end of the day if everyone wants that, then why not give it go. But for the time being Im planning for this map to stick quite close to a solid standard perception of map balance/gameplay etc because I think its what is needed right now.
|
On May 01 2017 07:25 Freakling wrote:
If that idea were to be implemented, those expansions should better be farther out, maybe facing those ridges.
Its an interesting idea that you guys have come up with.
RoomOfMush you have brought up an interesting concept. Its about whether a map should grab attention every time it is played or if it should be as much of a blank canvas as possible for the players to take centre stage. Right now for me, I am looking for a map that leans towards the latter, so we can see the true reflection of the current state of the game (the most advanced build orders and strats), and the true skill level of the players. So I made this map trying to fulfil that. Hopefully on this map the players will take centre stage.
On May 06 2017 01:25 RoomOfMush wrote:
That is true. Although eggs are not that new and special anymore. It still is a little bit more special than FS.
oh yeah I agree the eggs themselves arent special at all anymore. I meant the gameplay ramifications, that zerg can take a 3rd base vs terran and have extra protection from the marines, but will have to work out a way to get lurkers prepared and in position too. I mean just for zerg to have more than 1 option of where to take a 3rd base reliably vs terran is quite lovely. Things like that.
And actually out of the maps that have big hills, there arent any with a setup quite like this surprisingly. Maybe its too subtle and comes across as boring but to me the chokes and hills on this map are quite novel. Does anyone else sort of think this? Im not trying to toot my own trumpet, I dont give a damn who made it, I just thought a map like this needs to exist so I banged it out.
The thin unbuildable path is a bit like Circuit Breaker bridges, but there is only 1 and its a bit wider. You can path units across it easier but its still a funnel choke that is dangerous.
The shape and position of the hill. Its quite large. It has quite a long unwalkable edge on 1 side so you have to walk a long-ish way around if you want to change attack path. The ramp to the middle of the map is thinner than the other ramp. The defender can stay back away from it and enjoy the buildable ground inside or can move out a bit onto the hill. The shape accommodates a decent squad of units and protects them well like a large bunker. If you park some units on it later on, you cover the two side paths quite nicely.
Yes its a standard 4 player map, but actually its unexpectedly quite unique in how it plays out hopefully, when you dig down a little in my opinion.
On May 06 2017 01:25 RoomOfMush wrote:
I understand where you are coming from and what you say makes sense in a certain way. But sometimes little imbalances are what makes the game interesting. The game would certainly be more balanced if all races had exactly the same units with the same values and same abilities and whatnot. It would just not be quite as interesting that way.
But of course, it is your map and your decision.
I absolutely agree, at the end of the day we play an asymmetric game. We should embrace the variety as this is one of the main characteristics of starcraft. Ill quickly mention this touches back on the can of worms you/I opened earlier in this post, about what a map's purpose is. Should it fade into the background because the game is already so full of character, or should it try and muscle in a bit and enhance the show. Well Id say it should enhance if it can, but dont steal the show completely. And so our thoughts align in this case. Thats why Im trying to think of a good way to maybe implement your suggestions. Got any ideas on how to make the 3/9 and 12/6 differ a little?
Also I dunno, if we only had to worry about one race mirror matchup, it would certainly be less of a headache for mapmakers haha
This also goes back to the reply I made to Piste about 3 bases either in a line or in a triangle etc. And I said "Depending on personal taste, this variety is either a small amount or a large amount. For me its quite large." So yeah, just the variety of being a 4 spawn map can be enough to keep the map from getting stale as it were for some people.
But again, if we can come up with something cool, then great!
Regarding "its your map and your decision". Well there's gotta be some perks right haha. But just to tell everyone who doesnt already know, all my maps and most maps by the guys on bwmn are all unprotected so anyone is able to fiddle about with them in the editor and experiment. Personally, if anyone wants to alter one of my maps that is absolutely fine (Id encourage to make a note in the map description box and title/version number if you do).
On May 06 2017 01:25 RoomOfMush wrote:
I dont know much about that but I trust your superior experience and knowledge on the matter. One could always think of other ways to weaken terrans though. Maybe small patches of unbuildable terrain on the outskirts of the main bases or something like that.
Ah thanks. Also, you are correct to treat me as the almighty oracle of knowledge unbridled
Yep, if I was skilled enough I might be able to, but I dont think Id be able to, and for the map to still have satisfying gameplay through the stages of the game. Things might end up getting a bit funky, Id prefer to keep this map close to established norms in order to gather as much from the depth already there, rather than have more quirky map specific timings. But Im being excessively theoretical. Yes it is probably possible to make a change, and find a decent compromise. Open to ideas still, but not planning on making any if not needed or something along those lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/coMWIS5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7P2Myk3.jpg)
