31st October 2017 Version 0.92 Clay Fields -Added 3rds, closer to natural and with single ramp. 3 pylon wallable. Siege tanks cannot hit the townhall (or comsat scanner) from the low ground unless standing right next to the ramp.
-Added unbuildable centre hill.
-3/9 o clock ramps can now be traversed by ground units without having to kill the eggs first. (there are still 2 eggs on each ramp but they only make the ramp thinner rather than block units). 3/9 o clock ramps can be walled by 2 pylons diagonally, or 3 pylons fully.
-Can wall the path between the 3rd and the hill with 3 depots/pylons.
Around 40 hours of work in this update. ----------------------------------------- 7th November 2017 Version 0.93 Clay Fields -Moved start location in top right main -Changed mineral formation in bottom right main -Unwalkable tiles next to inverted ramps at 3rds
(improved mining) (another 14 hours of testing, hashtagsadpandabearguyface) ----------------------------------------- 8th January 2018 Updated Observer version to have blacked out mains for players. This is still labelled as version 0.93 because the melee version and the map itself is unchanged. Id recommend just directly replacing the old file with this one. ----------------------------------------- 31st January 2018 Version 1.0 Clay Fields -Improved rocky ground deco. -Added 2 buildable tiles to the north nats, allowing an extra cannon. -Added 1 unbuildable tile to the north nats, preventing bunker behind the mineral line possibility. -Added a few buildable tiles on the path to 3rd, giving some extra walling options with depots etc. -Minor deco.
I notice that you split up that third base at the top/bottom; however, it feels like this made the map almost too easy defensively, as now there is only one ramp to this base and a Siege Tank has full coverage of that entrance, from the main. I know that this is a common trope but don't you think this might be a bit too much of a defender's advantage? Have you considered adding a second ramp to both bases, perhaps a wider one?
In PvT I would say Protoss threatens a pretty strong frontal attack onto a 3 base terran as there are 3 paths to cover. The paths are quite wide, one of which is especially wide and is unbuildable highground (which gives quite a lot of attacker advantage). Do you think it is harder or easier on this map for terran to hold 3 bases than on fs? I think that for terran to safely move out and secure a 3rd on this map takes a bit more investment than on fs (and compared to circuit breaker too). I agree that a siege tank in the main can cover the ramp to the 3rd somewhat. But if Protoss breaks the terran position on the low ground, well that is what really counts.
Generally I dont like bases with only 1 entrance where it is hard to retreat workers. Something I wanted for this map was for zerg to have options when it comes to 3rd base locations in ZvT (particularly if an attempt to take the usual empty main failed earlier in the game, but not only in that scenario). So the single ramp bases provide that, and having just the 1 ramp is critical to achieve that goal. You could have a 2nd ramp but have it walled off with eggs or something though. But this would introduce a new attack path between the 3rds that would be really short and lead to irritating gameplay in my opinion when left vs right spawns. (btw, Ive tried to design the 3rd such that it is still potentially possible to retreat some workers if you decide you cant hold it, despite it being a single ramp base. The fact that a tank in the main can help cover the ramp into the 3rd contributes to that).
Thats my current thinking. As you can see though (with this large update) I am open to making changes.
On November 01 2017 04:49 Jealous wrote: I notice that you split up that third base at the top/bottom; however, it feels like this made the map almost too easy defensively, as now there is only one ramp to this base and a Siege Tank has full coverage of that entrance, from the main. I know that this is a common trope but don't you think this might be a bit too much of a defender's advantage? Have you considered adding a second ramp to both bases, perhaps a wider one?
same as "Even Wider!" but with disruption webs to act as walls. (add more remove some) i donno :o + Show Spoiler +
lastly same as "same as Even Wider! but with disruption webs to act as walls" but with 2 xel naga temples added to act as further obstructions for too much ease of enter for enemies, but perhaps to much defense for defender? i donno + Show Spoiler +
essentially 3 ways in/out until the xen naga's are down then its a huge ramp, but the webs are still slightly defendy somehow + Show Spoiler +
i'd wait for a pro map makers opinion on these drawings lol. edit: nvm you are one lol
On November 03 2017 02:49 KungKras wrote: Reminds me of fighting spirit. But this one has more high ground for tanks in the middle
So do you like it or not so much?
@Twinkle Toes, I reckon Protoss and Zerg have got some strong options too though. PvT Carrier style PvT has become more viable in this update. Arbiter style is still good though, and the mains are still big enough to accomodate plenty of gateways. Protoss can expand away from the terran if desired (talking about left vs right spawns) but doesnt have to, both directions are viable. A large amount of the terrain is unbuildable, and there are wide battlespaces to engage in, plus potential backstab options.
PvZ Easy to wall vertical entrance naturals makes defending 3 hat hydra much easier. The 3rd base has 8 minerals and a full gas which greatly improves Protoss chances vs Zerg, as does the very reasonable investment to secure it. Holding a 4th base gives a gas too, and the chances of holding it is fair too. The centre hill aids smaller Protoss armies if they need to fall back temporarily while waiting for reinforcements, or to cost effectively deal as much damage as possible before dying. Contrast to circuit breaker where you just get completely surrounded in the middle. Plenty of space at expansions to make a robo, gate and cannons if you want to.
ZvT After securing 4 bases (main, nat, empty main, empty nat) it is much easier to continue up to 5 and 6 bases than on circuit breaker, and these bases have gas. This is a huge deal for Zerg helping them remain competitive in the late game. As mentioned before, zerg has genuinely viable options for a 3rd base here too. While you still want to take an empty main generally (partly because a 4th base will come easier afterwards), just having these other options present makes terrans job harder. It also increases the viability of lurker based midgame styles. Nice muta harassable naturals like on fs is an important bonus too. A strong natural entrance neck limits mnm damage potential in sunken bust scenarios etc.
ZvP All normal styles are doable (as with the other matchups). Additionally large sunken, spore, lurker fields are allowed here. Hell even the offensive sunken contain is a potential strategy on Clay Fields. Some of the map features that are helping Protoss get safely into the lategame with a good shot at winning in PvZ are also not hindering the zerg player. eg The protoss can quite safely take a 3rd base, but so can the zerg, so the game goes to the later stages more regularly. Basically theres nothing preventing zerg from also getting to the lategame in ZvP in a fair manner. Zerg can play close 3rd base style or empty natural as 3rd base style (its a standard map in many regards so this isnt surprising ofcourse). A good mix of open areas and chokier areas will make for interesting battle manoeuvring in this matchup for both players. And the various highgrounds give good places to retreat to if needed for both.
@wishbonesaka Thankyou for the pictures and feedback, very cool of you. And for the little pat on the back, it goes a long way believe. Out of time for now.
@wishbonesaka, of the pictures you made I probably like the first one the most, the one with the smallest curved ramp. An alternative would be just a double width ramp. However like I mentioned earlier, one of the things Im trying to keep is the option of zerg holding that base with lurkers (in other words its got to be a single width ramp). With that said I agree that a slightly wider ramp would probably be good still. Indeed these bases would still be easier to take as 5th and 6th bases for zerg in zvt compared to for example circuit breaker. A double width ramp at the 3rds would require a bit more to wall off for protoss in pvt but wouldnt be too bad. I do want 1 gate triple to be viable for protoss if terran rax expo/cc first.
The second picture with the very wide ramps goes too far in my opinion (too difficult to defend). And it would make the walking distance between the 2 bases very short which would be less fun. Adding disruption webs and temples generally isnt something that grabs me personally because it often seems like unnecessary complication. Then again, I have currently kept a few eggs on the map at the 3/9 o clock ramps which qualify for that.
The whole discussion is about whether the 3rds are too easy or not. I wrote several more paragraphs comparing to other maps and stuff but then I deleted it because basically it comes down to this; I think the difficulty of taking a 3rd is pretty good. Hopefully should be a nice steady build up kind of gameplay.
looks nice. but why are there eggs at the top thirds (next to the ramp) and not at the bottom? Oh and that position, whats their purpose? don't like that high ground in the mid too much.
@[AS]Rattus Hi, thanks. There are eggs at the 3/9 o clock ramps but not at the single ramp 3rds. The 3/9 o clock bases are further away, have 2 ramps to hold, have open ground around them, and are in a straight line expansion pattern rather than a triangle expansion pattern. These things make them less defensible. The eggs offset that a tiny bit. Its mostly just a fun little extra, really a minor thing that wont make much difference, could delete them if people prefer.
Ah thats a shame you dont like the middle hill. I think its pretty cool, why dont you like it? The idea is it acts as an incentive for smaller armies to move out on the map. If these smaller armies can get to the middle, they can exploit the hills thinner paths and high ground to go toe to toe with larger armies etc. And then maybe can push on further from this stepping stone terrain feature. Previously there was a base in the middle like on fs. While a centre base can be good in some ways, my feeling was that it helped terran a bit more than the other races in a way that wasnt so good overall. Now dont get me wrong, a terran set up on the centre hill as it is currently is still a pretty scary prospect. However, as there are no resources there now, terrans ability to stall the game in the very late stages, and then camp the middle has been taken away. The centre can also be used offensively by carriers in pvt for example, or perhaps a staging area, a zerg rally point if they are preparing to overwhelm an area in lategame zvt, its easier for a zerg to take and hold without being flanked etc. Thats just an example idea, Im sure you are more creative and may come up with tactics that you might enjoy executing.
Also just in a simplistic way, its kind of more interesting than a big flat space like on circuit breaker in my opinion. But there are still large battle spaces for max army engagements so the map doesnt get in the way of the players. Lastly the centre hill is fully unbuildable, and much of the mid is too, so if your concern is terran strength then this is reduced.
Im online for another 24 hours or so, but then offline for a bit over a week probably. The map is ready for playtesting now, so if you want to add it to your map rotation (players or tour organisers) feel free. I will maybe try to do a mini tour or some showmatches when Im back online in a few days so let me know if you would like to be part of that.
I think that you should make the center high ground whole and buildable. right now it doesnt look like theres space for 2 barracks or a pylon and 2 gateways anywhere in the center for cheese. I could be wrong, maybe im interpreting the chart for buildable ground wrong.
Those are certainly two options to keep on the table, maybe for a potential version 1.1 in the future or something if we felt they were needed.
Dont worry though, there is already enough space for 2 gateways and 2 pylons at each of the 4 patches of grass there in the middle. You can also build a single 4x3 building plus addon or pylon at the north and south tip of asphalt. If you wanted to proximity build some gateways and tech buildings off 1 pylon you would do it like for example Jangbi vs Bogus on Neo Ground Zero (or could do it at the 3/9 o clock).
Which by the way, brings up that the mains here on Clay Fields are a little smaller than on Neo Ground Zero (where they are a bit too big), and shaped differently (bit too open on ngz) to make bulldog style builds etc fairer but still viable. The mains on Clay Fields are a bit bigger than on Circuit Breaker though, where they can feel quite cramped.
At this moment, week 2 of Rookie Teamleague 2 is underway, with Clay Fields in this weeks map pool. To those that have been playing/obsing the map; how are you finding it? Good impressions so far? Any problems or niggles?
On January 08 2018 08:38 Jukado wrote: At this moment, week 2 of Rookie Teamleague 2 is underway, with Clay Fields in this weeks map pool. To those that have been playing/obsing the map; how are you finding it? Good impressions so far? Any problems or niggles?
I played a few games on it in preperation for RTL. I like this map but you should fix a major disadvantage (unless it's nothing from your side). When you host this map in UMS mode (both obs and melee version), the map is greyed out for the players to see the map (which I like for training purposes). However, you ALWAYS see the creep from your opponent Zerg and thus you instantly know where your opponent Zerg has spawned. Maybe just don't remove the fog of war in all four main bases or so. When hosting on melee or any other "competetive" mode, it's fine, so I guess I can live with it
On January 08 2018 08:38 Jukado wrote: At this moment, week 2 of Rookie Teamleague 2 is underway, with Clay Fields in this weeks map pool. To those that have been playing/obsing the map; how are you finding it? Good impressions so far? Any problems or niggles?
I played a few games on it in preperation for RTL. I like this map but you should fix a major disadvantage (unless it's nothing from your side). When you host this map in UMS mode (both obs and melee version), the map is greyed out for the players to see the map (which I like for training purposes). However, you ALWAYS see the creep from your opponent Zerg and thus you instantly know where your opponent Zerg has spawned. Maybe just don't remove the fog of war in all four main bases or so. When hosting on melee or any other "competetive" mode, it's fine, so I guess I can live with it
On January 08 2018 08:38 Jukado wrote: At this moment, week 2 of Rookie Teamleague 2 is underway, with Clay Fields in this weeks map pool. To those that have been playing/obsing the map; how are you finding it? Good impressions so far? Any problems or niggles?
I played a few games on it in preperation for RTL. I like this map but you should fix a major disadvantage (unless it's nothing from your side). When you host this map in UMS mode (both obs and melee version), the map is greyed out for the players to see the map (which I like for training purposes). However, you ALWAYS see the creep from your opponent Zerg and thus you instantly know where your opponent Zerg has spawned. Maybe just don't remove the fog of war in all four main bases or so. When hosting on melee or any other "competetive" mode, it's fine, so I guess I can live with it
yeah, I played some games on it including a zvz where we could both see where each other spawned on the map from the creep; which was a bit of a shame. It seems like a good map other than that stuff though!
On January 08 2018 08:38 Jukado wrote: At this moment, week 2 of Rookie Teamleague 2 is underway, with Clay Fields in this weeks map pool. To those that have been playing/obsing the map; how are you finding it? Good impressions so far? Any problems or niggles?
I played a few games on it in preperation for RTL. I like this map but you should fix a major disadvantage (unless it's nothing from your side). When you host this map in UMS mode (both obs and melee version), the map is greyed out for the players to see the map (which I like for training purposes). However, you ALWAYS see the creep from your opponent Zerg and thus you instantly know where your opponent Zerg has spawned. Maybe just don't remove the fog of war in all four main bases or so. When hosting on melee or any other "competetive" mode, it's fine, so I guess I can live with it
That’s a quick fix honestly
What's the fix?
Using any mode except UMS I guess that’s what he meant. But still, doesn’t change anything for the obs version, though.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Dd4T1wN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6w9Q4CC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hmkwXnS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/M5Rs4IT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CPGyyw9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Bkla3ob.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hRJHedC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KfldQPv.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iIPllRa.jpg)
