|
![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/2u7wuo8.png)
NEW MAP NAME: GENEVA
Map Image:
+ Show Spoiler +
Features & Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler +- An easy to take 3rd that is harder to defend when you have bigger armies.
- Added two watch towers on each side.
- Changed the fourth expansions to rich expansions.
- Changed the map's lava to water.
- Several cosmetic changes.
- Several doodads added.
- Cliffs above the 3rd for mid game harassment.
- Small chokes.
- A fairly straight rush distance.
- Rocks covering 4th expansion.
- Added rocks to make a third entrance to the 3rd base.
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/33u974h.png)
Map Analyzer Images:
+ Show Spoiler +
Download:
+ Show Spoiler +
My Other Maps:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Looks pretty good, however I would say add a second ramp to the watch tower platform, because it seems just a bit biased in favor of the top left position.
|
terran camping at watch tower = total map control and easy 4 bases then
|
I like it.
The third and fourth are hard to defend from main, but easier to defend if both are taken.
The middle seems nice and open, so the Zerg player in me is happy. Zerg will have one hell of a time creeping together main and natural, so the Zerg player in me is sad.
Perhaps 4th to gold?
|
On June 30 2010 06:08 ItsTheFark wrote:
Looks pretty good, however I would say add a second ramp to the watch tower platform, because it seems just a bit biased in favor of the top left position.
O.o There is two ramps on the tower platform O.o
|
this is a very interesting map. the aesthetic is nice, as well. beware of the extreme effectiveness of tanks on maps like this, although having an easily-accessible third expan should conceivably help Z. I'd be very curious to see the balance. maybe there should be some kind of extra flank--a backdoor with rocks or something--into the main. also you may consider high-yield mins in lieu of the regular ones at the breakable rock expans for flavor. good work!
|
I think about 90% of all map threads involve one of the first posts saying "Imba for T"
|
|
|
On June 30 2010 06:14 Joseki wrote:
I think about 90% of all map threads involve one of the first posts saying "Imba for T"
That percentage is to low.
The middle is open enough that it shouldn't be a huge issue. If you let a terran get to the point where he's covering that entire section which a billions tanks you've probably just lost rather than suffered from map imba.
|
The watchtower is going to be problematic in this case. Not so much the tower itself, but the fact that it's high ground and choked off. Tanks up there could really wreck some havoc, though it's hard to judge just how much they'd control the middle. I'd almost recommend a watch tower surrounded by LoS blockers in this case. Maybe add some high ground somewhere on the edges of the middle if you want to keep that kind of tactical option open.
Still I don't think it's that big of an issue like it is. If you position yourself there you're really vulnerable to drops as you can bounce between the 3rd and main/nat and the defenders are going to be hard pressed to cover both.
|
On June 30 2010 06:12 Skee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 06:08 ItsTheFark wrote:
Looks pretty good, however I would say add a second ramp to the watch tower platform, because it seems just a bit biased in favor of the top left position. O.o There is two ramps on the tower platform O.o
heh, I thought the same thing as him when i first looked at it, it's a trick of the light that the south ramp isn't as visible.
It's all good
I think it's an interesting, if small/cramped map (we have incineration zone, so it's not unusual)
|
|
|
It look like who ever controls the watch tower wins
|
I might move the watch tower onto the ground and put LOS blockers around it like Logo suggested.
edit: Its updated with a pic in changelog.
|
Think you should work on some doodads in the lava and on the land. I think you should download and take a look at incineration zone for inspiration.
|
United States1971 Posts
Work on doodads and textures like Wihl said.
-Make the harassment cliff by the third base larger
-Make the fourth expansions high yield minerals with only six mineral patches or add another expansion and make it high yield
-Make the main bases larger
-Make the third expansions smaller, the stretch from the minerals to the center of the map seems to large.
-Do something about the choke into the fourth base or connect another path to it. It needs to be much harder to control.
-Make the high ground in between the naturals and thirds larger (the ramps can be the same size)
-OPTIONAL: Extend the high ground at your main to cover behind your natural's mineral lines and have it serve as another harassment cliff. Add destructible rocks to block it off from the main. That would be fun.
-OPTIONAL: Maybe move the watchtower to the side of the center of the map and add another one on the other side, and cover them with a half circle of line-of-sight blockers.
Nice work on the map though. I wish I had the galaxy editor but I have a Mac >.<
|
I like the map how it is now and want to wait for some play test before I change anything.
|
On June 30 2010 07:15 Antares777 wrote:
-Make the main bases larger
I may not have the right perspective, but the main looks plenty big to me. If not, I think a smallish main would be a nice feature of the map, forcing you to put production/tech buildings outside your main.
Please don't scream imba for Zerg.
On June 30 2010 06:20 Logo wrote:
really wreck some havoc
It's wreak some havoc. I want to KILL HD when he screws that up. Sorry. Just can't stand to see that one messed up.
|
United States1971 Posts
On June 30 2010 07:26 Skee wrote:
I like the map how it is now and want to wait for some play test before I change anything.
Okay. I respect that.
...And now actually looking at the mains more carefully, they are really large and do not need to be made any larger.
|
I made quick photoshop to illustrate a couple of changes that I think can improve this map.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5867/magneusrmx.png) Green - D-rocks Red - Kill ramp Blue - Add ramp White - Add high ground
- Killing off the ramp to the third will make fast expanding more viable as protoss. (Not sure how big the chock at the nat is. Is it possible to to FFE?) This also shuts down the "no brainer" third.
- Putting the D-rocks here as the new path from nat to 3rd forces turtling players to move into the middle of the map.
- New high ground adds a new dynamic to how the center of the map is controlled. (Flanks, counter attacks,etc.) It also makes the choice of taking either left or right 4th base an option. (If the D-rocks are removed it might even be a viable 3rd.)
|
United States1971 Posts
I'm sorry I do not agree with getting rid of the ramp by the thirds and adding the destructible rocks, but I do like the idea of having those high ground areas near the center. Maybe they should be made larger so that players can move larger forces across them.
Also, if you do incorporate that into your map, you could add another watchtower and move the existing one to the side of the center and the other tower at the other side. Then players would fight over two watchtowers, and be able to see the high ground paths. If you do, put line-of-siht blockers in a half circle around the towers.
|
|
|
|
|
From a cursory view it looks really fun like steppes of war, but I guess those types of maps favor T eh (why do maps never favor P or Z [unless it's something ridiculous like a huge ramp to main/other shiz that never actually exists]), it's kind of frustrating 
|
On June 30 2010 08:23 Antares777 wrote:
I'm sorry I do not agree with getting rid of the ramp by the thirds and adding the destructible rocks, but I do like the idea of having those high ground areas near the center. Maybe they should be made larger so that players can move larger forces across them.
Also, if you do incorporate that into your map, you could add another watchtower and move the existing one to the side of the center and the other tower at the other side. Then players would fight over two watchtowers, and be able to see the high ground paths. If you do, put line-of-siht blockers in a half circle around the towers.
The placement of the ramp to the 3rd makes turtling too friendly and expanding too easy for terran and zerg versus protoss in many situations. There is a lot of fun, wide-open space in the middle of the map, and the placement of the destructible rocks encourages players to use it in both offensive and defensive ways.
|
I would like to see the high ground overlooking the third possibly have some ground connection in some way shape or form so that reapers and collosus could take advantage of that high ground by the third without having to use transports or walk through its front door.
|
United States1971 Posts
On June 30 2010 09:08 terranghost wrote:
I would like to see the high ground overlooking the third possibly have some ground connection in some way shape or form so that reapers and collosus could take advantage of that high ground by the third without having to use transports or walk through its front door.
Maybe you could have the high ground extend all the way to the fourth base, but with no ramp so the colossi/reaper can cliffwalk up from the fourth base. Putting a ramp there it seems would be kind of pointless IMO.
|
Small chokes are not good btw... 
|
United States1971 Posts
On June 30 2010 09:20 GenesisX wrote:Small chokes are not good btw...
Now that you bring that up, I do think that the chokes to the third bases should be made much larger. Maybe you should even bring the mineral lines closer and shrink those bases.
|
submit to Blizzard and replace Incineration Zone please
|
United States1971 Posts
On June 30 2010 09:36 TriniMasta[wD] wrote:
submit to Blizzard and replace Incineration Zone please
Hell yes!
Everyone hates Incineration Zone, it's such a bad map.
I, being a Zerg player, officially hate it the most.
|
Wow. Thanks for naming it after me. I'm honored!
|
United States1971 Posts
Still needs some work before it can replace incineration zone tho
take into consideration what everyone has said on this thread (but most importantly mine^^) and make this map own Incineration zone
|
On June 30 2010 08:28 Barrin wrote:I agree with everything mentioned so far, except DigitalD's red blob keep that ramp plz it's cool. This is really a good map. I'm sorry but lava just really isnt where it's at. Arguments have been mentioned a billion times in a billion other threads, please no lava . Change tileset and it will be pwn imo. Maybe make some textures a little more contrasting.
I wanted fog like blistering sands but I dont know how to do that.
|
United States1971 Posts
I think the fog is "endless pit" but idk. u c, i dont have the editor cause i have a mac >.<
|
On June 30 2010 14:03 Antares777 wrote:
I think the fog is "endless pit" but idk. u c, i dont have the editor cause i have a mac >.<
I don't know. Could anyone help me out with this?
|
On June 30 2010 08:28 Barrin wrote:I agree with everything mentioned so far, except DigitalD's red blob keep that ramp plz it's cool. This is really a good map. I'm sorry but lava just really isnt where it's at. Arguments have been mentioned a billion times in a billion other threads, please no lava . Change tileset and it will be pwn imo. Maybe make some textures a little more contrasting.
I like his idea of putting rocks on that little rock formation part, but im not so sure about the high ground.
|
United States1971 Posts
IMO the choke to the third base is way too small.
|
On July 01 2010 05:41 Antares777 wrote:
IMO the choke to the third base is way too small.
I updated the image and changelog image with a picture of the debris that make a 2nd choke to the 3rd base if destroyed.
|
This is probably the only map I would play on outside the map pool, unless I had to for a tournament or sumthing.
|
On July 01 2010 08:05 Bob300 wrote:
This is probably the only map I would play on outside the map pool, unless I had to for a tournament or sumthing.
Well i'm honored, lol. Anything new you want on the map?
|
United States1971 Posts
-third chokes seem too tight.
-OPTIONAL fourth bases could be high yield - your choice.
-OPTIONAL you should really put in the high ground pathways from the naturals to the fourths that DigitalD suggested and have there be two watchtowers in the center put off to the sides so that controlling both of them will grant vision to these side paths.
-the destructible rocks on the wall between the third and natural is barely a difference and would make very little changes in its current position.
-the high ground near the third should be larger so that it touches the fourth. This allows for cliffwalker harass, partically colossi.
-extend the tower high ground to behind the natural to allow for more drops to occur and harassment. I know that there is a ramp up to this high ground. Also, if it connects to the main, you can place a DR there and get a back door to the main if you want.
Those r my suggestions.
Otherwise, more texture work and doodads.
|
There is now two chokes and one has destructible rocks on the 3rd.
The tower can already see every single choke.
|
United States1971 Posts
With the watchtowers I meant only if you made that high ground ramp from the fourth to the natural.
Q: how much health do those DRs have?
|
|
|
On July 01 2010 11:38 Skee wrote:
There is now two chokes and one has destructible rocks on the 3rd.
The tower can already see every single choke.
Seeing every choke with a single watchtower is a bit ridiculous. I agree with antares that offset watchtowers would work well. If you use my idea of a high ground path to the fourth base then maybe put two watchtowers in between the 3rd/4th base chokes next to the small high ground.
An alternative suggestion to the offset watchtowers would be to expand the map size to support a larger center. This might help balance things out in two ways. 1) deemphasize the the map control that a single watchtower can have. 2) extend the rush distances slightly.
A few general concerns I have about this map:
-The ramp from nat. to 3rd.
I feel that protoss would be sorely lacking versus zerg in many early game situations. Protoss has no way of taking a fast natural safely with the threat of speedlings from the back door. Whether the protoss goes 3/4 gate into expo or goes robo tech or DT harass into expo, zerg will already have a really fast 3rd. On the terran side of things, that ramp lets terran turtle on three bases! Destructible rocks might help, removing the ramp might help, but either way that ramp causes too many problems as it is right now.
-The rush distances seem too short
Have you run your map through the map analyzer yet?
What are the map dimension BTW?
-Connect the 3rd base high ground to the 4th.
|
United States1971 Posts
Well put, I agree. Never thought about the backdoor being a problem for toss, probably cause I don't play toss...
The rush distances seem fine to me, I wouldn't worry about that as much.
@Skee those are what you need to fix, but good job so far! 
|
I like the map but you might want to test it with maybe a backdoor to the mainbase that connects to the other player's 4th which would be interesting because it can cause much different expanding patterns and a different split with less emphasis on controlling the middle of the map
|
Would be nice to just expand the middle, make it more like Luna. Sif there hasnt been a luna sc2 remake anyway! That map was great.
|
Overall, this map looks really good. I would change the forths a bit though, first off get rid of the destructible rocks blocking the expansion altogether (unless you made them a gold expo). I'd also move the bridge/choke connecting the expo closer to the center of the map, so that a terran player couldn't use a few siege tanks to secure both his third and forth at the same time.
Also, are the tiny little bump/island things scattered in the lava landable for drops? Because if they are, a terran could siege the mineral lines of the bottom right main and natural, giving some major positional/racial advantage.
|
United States1971 Posts
I agree about how easy it would be for a Terran player to secure his fourth and third. That's why I suggested changing the third's choke and adding a high ground side-path from the middle.
|
The map loses a lot of its beauty through the really obvious repetition of the lava. If you could break up this repetition by some rocks (maybe add a useable island somewhere - even without resources - so you could hide tech structures there) it would help the visual impression.
|
United States1971 Posts
I agree a lot of people are complaining about lava in most map threads. One guy added water AND lava it it cooled down the color of the lava a little. It was really cool. You might want to consider doing that to this map.
|
On July 02 2010 01:29 Rabiator wrote:
The map loses a lot of its beauty through the really obvious repetition of the lava. If you could break up this repetition by some rocks (maybe add a useable island somewhere - even without resources - so you could hide tech structures there) it would help the visual impression.
I wanted fog like on blistering sands, but dont know how. No one will tell me how. So lava stays until I get told how to do that =/.
On July 02 2010 01:29 eNyoron wrote:
Also, are the tiny little bump/island things scattered in the lava landable for drops?
They are just little pieces of land for the cosmetics.
I will look over page 3/(if there is a 4) when I get up tomorrow. For now its time for sleep. 
|
Ok, I have updated the map a bit.
- Added two watch towers on each side.
- Changed the fourth expansions to rich expansions.
- Changed the map's lava to water.
- Several cosmetic changes.
- Several doodads added.
- Name change pending.
Name change Poll at OP as well as new changelog and image.
|
|
|
The map analyzer shows just how cramped this map is. Watch towers are still wildly effective and discourages actual scouting. Rush distances are short but not unreasonably so.
The final suggestion I will make (in addition to the others that I have made) until I get to play this map when the beta comes back is this:
-The center of the map needs to be 50%-100% larger. Watch tower vision is too good and locking the map down with only a handful of siege tanks is too easy
|
On July 05 2010 13:35 DigitalD[562] wrote:
The map analyzer shows just how cramped this map is. Watch towers are still wildly effective and discourages actual scouting. Rush distances are short but not unreasonably so.
The final suggestion I will make (in addition to the others that I have made) until I get to play this map when the beta comes back is this:
-The center of the map needs to be 50%-100% larger. Watch tower vision is too good and locking the map down with only a handful of siege tanks is too easy
Yeah, I get what you mean. I am waiting for some play time before I make a major terrain change like that though.
|
Just letting everyone know that I am publishing all 3 of my maps now that beta is back up.
Aphareus
Geneva (previously Magneus)
King's Country
EDIT: The editor is not letting me connect to bnet, but SC2 is.
|
After getting my hands on this map I was shock to see how many of my suspicions were proven true. Without some drastic changes this map will wallow in mediocrity. I only played as terran vs the comp. to check the map for design flaws and not necessarily any racial imbalance.
1 - Chokes are way too small. The nat. can nearly be walled off with a cc. The 3rd can be walled of COMPLETELY! A terran can put a defensive cc down at the nat. choke and hold it down with only a couple tanks then lift to the 3rd choke and wall off with a PF.
2 - The D rocks can be sieged from the high ground. I don't think this was intended. Might be irrelevant given my previous point.
3 - Ramp from nat. to 3rd. Breaks all T vs X matchups. This problem is exacerbated further by first point. There is potential for good harassment options and early game pressure in non T matchups. With that said I still feel that an easy 3rd is a big issue that can be solved by removing the ramp.
4 - This map is too small. The main feels small, the nat. feels small, the chokes are small and the middle is small. Expanding the map 40x40, pushing the 3rd and 4th bases further away, and doubling the size of the middle will help tremendously.
My previous suggestion about adding highground to the center area still stands, I too would like to see the map size expanded in its current layout before you make any drastic terrain changes.
Sorry if I seem overly critical. This map has a lot of potential and I look forward to what comes next.
|
I just published a slightly taller version with larger chokes. The bases are also more round and therefore are a little bigger.
|
On June 30 2010 06:05 Skee wrote:NEW MAP NAME: GENEVAMap Image:+ Show Spoiler +Features & Changelog:+ Show Spoiler +- An easy to take 3rd that is harder to defend when you have bigger armies.
- Added two watch towers on each side.
- Changed the fourth expansions to rich expansions.
- Changed the map's lava to water.
- Several cosmetic changes.
- Several doodads added.
- Cliffs above the 3rd for mid game harassment.
- Small chokes.
- A fairly straight rush distance.
- Rocks covering 4th expansion.
- Added rocks to make a third entrance to the 3rd base.
On the beta. Search Geneva.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8564/mgnesu.png)
![[image loading]](http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1261/magneussummary.png)
![[image loading]](http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8089/magneusshortestpaths410.png)
![[image loading]](http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2879/magneusbases.png)
