[Map] First melee map in a long time ~_~

On May 14 2009 00:26 Mogwai wrote:
i think 128 is talking about the squares that are used for buildings and whatnot. like, a pylon is 2 x 2... I could be wrong, but I've always thought that's what those measurements were.

On May 14 2009 00:29 sushiman wrote:
Seems quite z-favored. Lots of open ground and exposed expansions. No way for toss to make a safe FE if both players end up on the same side of the map.
Unless the middle is opened up, there's a 66% chance you end up without early land access to your opponent, and with the many routes into the main and expo, mutas will probably reign supreme.

On May 14 2009 00:29 KnightOfNi wrote:
I don't think that you can kill warp gates, but I'm not sure on that. You should probably get that checked through testing.

Also, the map looks really linear, and the buildings (especially at 12/3/6/9) make the map look and probably feel really convoluted. Another thing: do the power generators on top of the geysers actually prevent an assimilator from being built?

I'm gonna go and test this out now.

On May 14 2009 00:48 Abihsot wrote:
very interesting map. I realized there are 10 mineral patches in main base so I assume in PvZ, P can go 2gate lot push (when they are on same side) then expand to natural or something. Only thing im concerned is that there might be too much resources on other expansions. (even though they are blocked by natural buildings..) Maybe try 6~8 min+ 1 gas instead 10 min+2 gas on 3 and 9?

On May 14 2009 01:45 decafchicken wrote:
z >>> p >>> t >>> z if its close position. Other than that probably z/p >>> t due to the openess and inability to build shit anywhere in the middle of the map

On May 14 2009 01:46 Trozz wrote:
I really like this.
Horizontal spawns are rad.
Gotta scout it quick.

I want to play this.
If I'm looking for a game,
where should I loiter?

On May 14 2009 02:28 Chef wrote:
Red and teal's main and natural gas are both slower than the other two players

Left and above the Town Hall: 3 peons.

Right and below the Town Hall: 4 peons.

The creep at the top does not go onto the cliff edge like the creep at the bottom does. This would be significant in 2v2 play.

Other things... But not bad for someone who just got back to map making.

On May 14 2009 02:35 MasterReY wrote:
get creep at 12 and 6 again :O
otherwise that sunkens are useless there.

i suggest to make the assimilators which block 3 and 9 a bit more in one vertical line.

like:

      ###

      ###

instead of

            ###
###

On May 14 2009 03:10 MagisterMan wrote:
Ah this thread has inspired me to make a map! Btw do you take that big screenshot of the map?

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
PLEASE resize your map picture. I personally use photofiltre (free download) to resize my map images quickly.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
gas issue; an easy fix is to make all main geysers directly above the sl.
Your mineral formations look terrible, have you tested them?

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Since your nat makes FE nearly impossible in most cases, I would reccomend making the main choke much smaller to make the fact that you're forcing 1base openings easier on the players.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
I highly doubt your mineral/temples at 12/6 are going to function like the minerals/temples in Medusa if that's what you're aiming for. I think if you removed the minerals there would be no difference. Stacking your temples like that is kind of annoying since the effects of splash are so diminished.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
I don't like the innate pathing issues they cause between horizontal players, and don't think they help gameplay. In fact, I think they distract players from the concept, and are more likely to make gameplay annoying than to spice it up.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
There's a lot of wasted space between the mains and islands. Mostly this is due to using an awkward expo layout with this form of map symmetry.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
I think the horizontal positions' pathing is too linear and too tight for any kind of decent balance. It might be better to make the vertical positions open and neutral block the horizontal ones instead.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
If the psi disruptors in the islands actually work, I think they're overkill. An egg wall, troy gate, neutral block, stacked neutral block, stacked 0 value mineral wall would all work individually, but I don't think any of those need an additional high hp neutral block. By that point, you've made those expansions fully island and then the neutrals or whatever concept you use just form clutter.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
What are the psi disruptors for on the lowground of 12/6?

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
The central expansion is entirely useless. It's incredibly vulnerable, has no gas and thus has no value, is nearly impossible to take at all since you must first kill an armoured 5000 hp building. If those psi disruptors hide geysers under them, they're really annoying and only further make the expansion useless. If they're just there to block pathing, they're really annoying because they further block pathing. I highly reccomend entirely removing the central expo as it blocks potentially critical pathing for corner and vertical gameplay.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Representing the only neutral gas expansions, and the critical only non-island 5th gas for vertical or corner players, I think the 12/6 lowground gas expos are too vulnerable and needlessly neutral blocked. I can understand leaving them vulnerable, but I don't understand the neutral block.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
You've made scouting incredibly difficult, particularly for zerg, who has absolutely no safe place to put his ovys anywhere in the map. It's impossible to scout vertical positions for a long time. However, for horizontal positions it's retardedly easy to scout since the main choke is so large, and because of the presence of the backdoor (later on). This seems... odd to me.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
For example, let me list some of the viable concepts I see in the map:
-Positionally varied gameplay involving hybrid island play vs plain ground play
-A more micro oriented map focusing on encouraging 1base openings and discouraging modern FE builds

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
The problems with those concepts is that the gameplay for the different positions is just kind of bad imo. You have awfully linear and tight pathing with long distances and no functional expo layout, with a backdoor nearly impossible to defend under most circumstances in horizontal positions. The backdoor to be honest makes no sense to me, it just doesn't flow with anything else here. It's just here because you decided you wanted a backdoor, ignoring as far as I can see the implications it would have on gameplay. In a horizontal game, only the bottom/top half of the map matters. Imagine BlitzX without the 3rd gas expo, and with a normal path instead of a tight path. Then, make the expos in the bottom half of BlitzX 32 tiles farther, with no reason to even venture half that far since you also take away the large battlefield Blitzx nececitates with its tight choke normally. Then, replace the island with a backdoor path connecting the mains. Can you honestly imagine any kind of good gameplay on the map I just described? That's what you've created in your horizontal world. The horizontal world is a main vs a main with 128 tiles between them. Main vs main only really works in Blood Bath, with 64 tiles separating players. The nats are so difficult to defend, only the distance between players functions as a kind of defense, but if you're behind/losing you can't really use that to your advantage, so you're just stuck losing, making the whole horizontal gameplay focused on all-in 1base builds like 3gate reaver, 4rax tanks, ridiculous stuff like that.
For vertical positions, the expo layout is a little more functional since you have free access to the horizontal main/nat as well as some of the neutral expansions. However, the fact that everything is so spaced out is accentuated. The 1base orientation is entirely lost. The hybrid play neutrals might have encouraged is entirely lost in favour of slower than normal macro play without most forms of harass or scouting. Linearity is still present to a lesser degree in pathing.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
1base orientation is tough to balance and/or make work for long games, but I think if you focused on that alone you could manage it, especially if you don't mind using a vast array of weird small features and concepts along the way.
Hybrid gameplay (land/island discrepancies) is tough to make work too, but again I think if you focused on it you easily could make it work. However, 1base orientation and hybrid play are very different. To make 1base orientation work, you must have a way to transition into more than 1base play later, else you might as well remake Blood Bath. However, a hybrid layout makes the 2nd expansion very easy to take regardless due to the inability of players to harass eachother at "normal" times. Thus I think you should pick either/or rather than both.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
tl;dr I think you should focus on a single main concept, and try to create a viable expo layout and structure around the concept, or make the concept around a viable expo layout, instead of mixing such conflicting concepts together. There's a difference from being "interesting" and "complex/complicated". You can complicate a map and make it interesting if you complicate it within reason/moderation. Throwing a weird expo layout, hybrid island play, forced positional variety, and complex (and even messy, here) use of neutrals all in one map just makes a complicated map.

On May 14 2009 06:08 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Ok I lied. There is much I can say. If you're interested in mapping more, or want more opinions on the map, you should post it at broodwarmaps.net. I think you'll find a weird map like this recepted a little better. People here are friendly enough to post, but you most likely aren't going to attract the best gamers to comment on the map since the gameplay is so radical. Radical concepts are neat to mappers, but frustrating/annoying to gamers, I find.

On May 14 2009 09:01 konadora wrote:
Should I move up the minerals a bit?

Protoss can go 1 gate -> FE depending on Zerg's position

On May 14 2009 12:53 Musoeun wrote:
I'm looking at the map, and the only way you'll actually get a fast game is if both spawn either left or right side. Anything else there's a bunch of buildings in the way.