|
EDIT: NEW VERSION
[Map] 1vs1 Guardian's Grove - Version 1.2 / 15.09.2010 (EU)
Please search GUARDIAN'S GROVE on battlenet EU
![[image loading]](http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8171/gg12shot.png)
Map details:
* Map size: 128 x 122
* Number of players: 2
* one base, one natural, one normal expansion and one high yield/gold expansion per player
* each normal/blue resource spot provides 8 mineral and 2 vespin, high yield/gold provides 6 mineral and 1 vespin
* 2 Xel Naga watch towers between expansion (LoSBs) and high yield (ramp)
* destructible rocks blocking high yield (4x4), between natural and high yield (2x4)
Map changes:
* bigger Main and Gold
* no more backdoor into Main
* more space everywhere, especially in centre and around all minerals, some changes in layout
* less trees, fixed collsions
* X'N ramp turned 45° (facing north/south)
* Main ramp turned 45°
* bigger chokes to Main, Gold, X'N, dropzone at Nat
* Main's choke halfway blocked by destructable rocks for easy wall at start but wide entrance in endgame
* ramp to central area much wider, turned 45° (facing Nat) for quicker access to Nat/Main
* architectural structure close to ramp (towards 3rd) to prevent mass siegetank spam
* architectural structure close to X'N and 3rd for drop harassment or movement control
* better texturing
Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Map Analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler +
Main:
+ Show Spoiler +
Nat:
+ Show Spoiler +
Third:
+ Show Spoiler +
Gold:
+ Show Spoiler +
Xel'Naga:
+ Show Spoiler +
Dropzone:
+ Show Spoiler +
Barricade against siegetankspam:
+ Show Spoiler +
Ramp with DRs:
+ Show Spoiler +
Known issues:
Coming changes:
---
Old info, Version 1.1 below:
+ Show Spoiler +[Map] 1vs1 Guardian's Grove - Version 1.1 / 23.08.2010 (EU) ![[image loading]](http://www.225am.de/God%27sGrove/showsize/Guardian%27s%20Grove%201.0/GuardiansGrove-06Middleb.jpg) Map details: * Map size: 128 x 122
* Number of players: 2
* one base, one natural, one normal expansion and one high yield/gold expansion per player
* each normal/blue resource spot provides 8 mineral and 2 vespin, high yield/gold provides 6 mineral and 1 vespin
* 2 Xel Naga watch towers between expansion (LoSBs) and high yield (ramp)
* destructible rocks blocking high yield (4x4), between natural and high yield (2x4) and at main base backdoor (2x6)
![[image loading]](http://www.225am.de/God%27sGrove/showsize/Guardian%27s%20Grove%201.0/GuardiansGroveOverviewSmall.png) ![[image loading]](http://www.225am.de/God%27sGrove/showsize/Guardian%27s%20Grove%201.0/Guardian%27sGrove-shortestPaths-8-2.png) more info and pictures at sc2mapsterKnown issues: * units can run between trees behind main base minerals
Coming changes: * prevent units to walk behind trees
* prevent units to walk in front of trees and shoot down on attacker (cliff at main base)
* bigger main (cutting down trees)
* bigger ramp/choke between central area an cliff1 (exe, nat)
* less trees around exe/nat
* ramp between exe and gold closer to gold
No download or battlenet US yet. Please search GUARDIAN'S GROVE on battlenet EU. i am open for suggestions (more space anyone?  ) and critic. also please point out any bugs you may find.thanks and hf.
|
guys, not even one comment? I really need your critic to get this map to play better.
|
I think the map looks real good, and has a solid design to it. A couple things i would consider are:
Does the map need a back door to the main, and if not, How can i make the expo behind it feel more like a 3rd? Back doors are generally not popular and accepted for the moment only because blizzard insists on having a ladder map with one.
Secondly, a lot of trees means a lot of clutter and cliffs that become pathing nightmares for units like reapers or colossi without proper pathing blocking. I think a lot of areas with a lot of trees are actually nice open playable areas Maybe consider reducing the amount of foilage and increasing the amount of playable area.
The textures are well done and the size is good.
|
Its look really great, But there are only small ramps, so its really great for terran. Seige tanks will own every thing.
|
This is one of the best maps I've seen.
|
Hmm i like it a lot, especially the trees reducing cliff hopping. However i feel like the DR are really only there to annoy me and there isnt a lot of benefit to it. I mean it open ups a way to the 3rd but unlike on blistering sands it doesn't provide a faster attack route. Maybe if the 3rd was a little bit more cozy and protected i would consider taking down the rocks. Maybe make 2 ramps 1 big ramp.
Just a suggestion, i might be wrong tho.
PS. Very nice map. Really like it despite beign 2 player map. I feel like they are too small. Cant wait to see some 4 player maps you will deviate.
Edit: also there are too many small ramps. The one leading to the center should definitely be wide
|
Gotta admit that it looks kinda sexy, I would love to try that map.
link ? yes ... no ?
|
Looks interesting, I'd like to try it out on US
|
Samro225am,
Your map is beautiful.
It looks so good that I was inspired to make my first post after lurking on teamliquid for the last five or six years.
Without playing on it, it's hard to say. konicki makes a good point about the back door to the main.
My suggestions: Consider removing the destructible rocks from where they are now, right in front of the gold minerals, and close off the space between the 3rd and the gold. This would ensure that expansions into the gold are contested as forces from both sides would be routed through the middle of the map. I don't think you need rocks to make players think twice about the area. Simply placing those expos where you have does more work than rocks will ever do.
Secondly, rather than having destructible rocks allowing a back door into the main, I'd suggest leaving an opening between the main and the natural. That way, matches would begin relatively linearly with a chance for a fast expo and without worry as to where a first attack might come from.
Thirdly, remove the destructible rocks between the nat and gold field. Let players feel safe about taking their natural.
However, open up the nat. Make it so the choke that leads from nat to the middle of the board is more open (you've already addressed this). I think this will lead to some interesting play as the natural is so available, yet so vulnerable. The hope here would be to encourage players to weight an option between the easily reachable nat or expanding to the 3rd instead for more protection from the terrain.
Finally, I don't know about the excessive cliff area close to the middle of the map. I can't tell, at this scale, how many tanks I can fit up there. As I Terran player, I tend to like these touches; yet I find that many Zs and Ps don't want to play on Kulas or Lost Temple. Temple was so common in BW, but I think the threat of Ts cliffing with tanks is a turn-off for other races in SC2.
I'm not against destructible rocks in general. I just don't think that they're necessary for creating strategic options on your map.
Hope that helps you brainstorm--ask for clarification if I'm not clear. The more I looked at your map, the more I had to double-take as there is quite a bit of nuance to the positions. Great looking map. You obviously thought a lot about how you wanted matches to play out on it.
|
This looks like an excellent map. I'll try to test it as soon as possible but the one suggestion that I and a few other people have mentioned would be to widen the ramp leading the the center low ground.
|
I like the map name and the first screenshot introducing it, really creative!
|
Interesting map, The rush distance seems really far also. Seems like it would be a strong macro/harass style map.
|
Hi everybody,
thanks a lot for your comments. I am new to sc and this map is my very first, so probably I made a few misconceptions in the layout. I try to answer all comments and exlain my ideas sothat you can reply with what changes would help to strengthen the map and its concept.
Your critic is very encouraging and now I have a lot of ideas of how to approach the problems you have pointed me to.
I quoted a few exemplary post and I’m loooking forward to suggestions from everybody.
ON LAYOUT AND ROCKS
On August 29 2010 07:28 konicki wrote:
I think the map looks real good, and has a solid design to it. A couple things i would consider are:
Does the map need a back door to the main, and if not, How can i make the expo behind it feel more like a 3rd? Back doors are generally not popular and accepted for the moment only because blizzard insists on having a ladder map with one.(...)
I made the second path into the main in order to make it more difficult for terrans to turtle during midgame (controlling main, nat and probably the gold).
Also I wanted to give the players more option. Main-Nat-Gold“A“ and Main-Exp-Gold“B“ are both in one straight line. When you decide on taing Gold“A“(at5) before going for the expansion this means you have to take time to destroy rocks and you are more open for attacks. When you decide to go fort the expansion you gain better control of the map, because you keep the bariccade of the stones close to the exe, you are based on cliff level +1, you are close to the Xel’Naga watchtower of your side of the map and you can still decide on taking down the rocks between expansion and main, while remaining more compact and less vulnarable. The AI even opened with expansion instead of natural more than once.
If I deleted the backdoor I gain a bit more space fort the main and I would also have more space fort he exe and could open the terain up a bit (connection towards centre and nat). This would be quite a gain I think. So what do you mean with „makin it feel more like a 3rd?“ Do you think it is not open enough towards the centre of the map? I could easily move the cenral ramps towards this expansion or even make a second.
On August 29 2010 07:30 Pixel. wrote:
Its look really great, But there are only small ramps, so its really great for terran. Seige tanks will own every thing.
Siege tanks work really well at the two bigger ramps in the centre making in necessary to use the pathes via the gold expo.
All ramps have different sizes. The ramps at the main should be blockable for terrans(e.g. 1barack+2supplydepot). Ramps at centre and between gold and expo are a bit bigger. Rmps between Nat and Gold are the same as Main. Ramps at watchtowers are small.
Do you consider a specific one as too small?
On August 29 2010 08:52 TymerA wrote:
However i feel like the DR are really only there to annoy me and there isnt a lot of benefit to it. I mean it open ups a way to the 3rd but unlike on blistering sands it doesn't provide a faster attack route. Maybe if the 3rd was a little bit more cozy and protected i would consider taking down the rocks. Maybe make 2 ramps 1 big ramp.
Edit: also there are too many small ramps. The one leading to the center should definitely be wide
Unlike BlisteringSands the backdor is not made to be a faster attackroute but basically to make a second path into the main. Do you think it is useless? What if there were no stones (naturalA and naturalB)?
Why ist the 3rd not protected enough? It has a lot of pathes connected to it but also it is relative close to your main, once you got rid of the stones.
If there was a second or a wider ramp to the centre coming from 3rd it would be even less cosy. Do you think it would help to add DBs towards he gold on this side, too?
On August 29 2010 10:34 skatbone wrote:
My suggestions: Consider removing the destructible rocks from where they are now, right in front of the gold minerals, and close off the space between the 3rd and the gold. This would ensure that expansions into the gold are contested as forces from both sides would be routed through the middle of the map. I don't think you need rocks to make players think twice about the area. Simply placing those expos where you have does more work than rocks will ever do.
Secondly, rather than having destructible rocks allowing a back door into the main, I'd suggest leaving an opening between the main and the natural. That way, matches would begin relatively linearly with a chance for a fast expo and without worry as to where a first attack might come from.
Thirdly, remove the destructible rocks between the nat and gold field. Let players feel safe about taking their natural.
Do I understand you right that basically all DRs are removed and you suggest to only block betweenthe expansion from the gold?
Do you suggest to have two openings into the main (from nataral and expo?)
USE OF TREES
On August 29 2010 07:28 konicki wrote: (...)
Secondly, a lot of trees means a lot of clutter and cliffs that become pathing nightmares for units like reapers or colossi without proper pathing blocking. I think a lot of areas with a lot of trees are actually nice open playable areas Maybe consider reducing the amount of foilage and increasing the amount of playable area.
On August 29 2010 08:52 TymerA wrote:
Hmm i like it a lot, especially the trees reducing cliff hopping.
I made some extra path blocking but will rework it completely.
Consider that some parts that look cluttered actually are not – it is only he flowers.... I think I will visually open some spots like the dropzone and the watchtowers to emphasize them as a specíal area to make them stand out more and clear.
Are there areas where you dislike that trees are blocking off cliffjumps?
Which spots need more openness but are now blocked by trees (except the main and the 3rd)?
GENERAL
My idea was to have multiple attacking routes, so that zerg can outmaneuver terran forces despite lots of cliffs. How can I empazise this idea in the layout?
From your comments I got the impression that it helps to delelet the backdoor and the DRs. I will definately ry this out, but actually I like the DRs at the natural quite a bit.
I consider to delete the ramp between 3rd and gold, but make a second ramp between central area and 3rd. I am also thinking about narrowing or even deleting the path between natural and 3rd so that terran can not abuse it with siegtanks. players would rather have to move down to the centre before going back up into third. This would open up the whole centre, too.
Will take a look at it tomorrow evening...
|
Err...how do I flank? I play Zerg, and at pretty much any spot on the map I'm going to have to go a long way to get behind the opponent's army. Trying to fight head to head up a ramp into my opponent's base won't work, and once he pushes out I have to engage at some point and can't do so from one direction down a ramp. Once the push has been stopped then the extra path into his base will become valuable, but prior to that the extra attack paths don't mean much if I have to go so far to get around the army.
|
This map is much too narrow everywhere. You need wider paths for armies to maneuver and extra routes for mobile armies to flank. If I'm not mistaken, it looks like siege tanks on the mains cliff will be able to punish armies coming up the middle ramp on the level below it. Thats probably a bit strong.
|
On August 30 2010 05:11 Melancholia wrote:
Err...how do I flank? I play Zerg, and at pretty much any spot on the map I'm going to have to go a long way to get behind the opponent's army. Trying to fight head to head up a ramp into my opponent's base won't work, and once he pushes out I have to engage at some point and can't do so from one direction down a ramp. Once the push has been stopped then the extra path into his base will become valuable, but prior to that the extra attack paths don't mean much if I have to go so far to get around the army.
Do you think two levels up from centre to main is generally to much ramps?
Do you think it might help with option for flanking if the RDs are gone?
On August 30 2010 05:29 FiveAlarm wrote:
This map is much too narrow everywhere. You need wider paths for armies to maneuver and extra routes for mobile armies to flank. If I'm not mistaken, it looks like siege tanks on the mains cliff will be able to punish armies coming up the middle ramp on the level below it. Thats probably a bit strong.
do you think this problem (siege tanks) can be solved by deleting the connection between nat and 3rd (or by making it narrow) and making one ramp for each instead of one ramp alone?
|
I am working on the map. it does not play bad I think, but I tried to take all your input and reworked pretty much everything: i even re-mirrored the whole map.
here is a screenshot with all mayor changes marked in the map:
![[image loading]](http://www.pictureupload.de/originals/pictures/310810121317_Guardian__sGrove1-3alpha.png)
the 3rd now feels more like a real third and not like a second natural that is blocked and the map is more open overall while the central are stayed the same.
The average openness ist 4.5.
with less pathes and stones the decisionmaking is easier: destroy your own rocks to have fast access to the gold or play a bit more defensive and take the save and cosy 3rd. having the gold again gives you an advantage by better control over the dropzone(DZ) and opponents watchtower(XN)...
|
And you said this is your first map?
My first map was terrible :S lol, but you are very good at using the editor. I like this map, nice job!
|
Really like the look of this map, especially the second version with no DRs. Will definitly try it when i get home for some real feedback!
Keep up the good work.
|
oh - the new version is no online yet. thought you gusy might help me deciding on layout and DRs and then I get back to the editor and retexture everthing :D
|
after some testing I have to say that I do not like the layout shown a few post above. gameplay is more static and more predictable. I think it will work well for a 4-player(startingposition)map though. I will start working on it once i', happy with the 1vs1 version.
upcoming changes of 1vs1 guardian grove (version as published on battlenet, picture at beginning of thread) will include:
* bigger Main and Gold
* no more backdoor into Main
* more space everywhere, especially around all minerals, some changes in layout
* less trees, fixed collsions
* X'N ramp turned 45° (facing north/south)
* Main ramp turned 45° (like picture above but wider)
* bigger chokes to Main, Gold, X'N, dropzone at Nat
* ramp to central area much wider, turned 45° (facing Nat) for quicker access to Nat/Main
* architectural structure close to ramp (towards 3rd) to prevent mass siegetank spam
* architectural structure close to 3rd for drop harassment
* better texturing
thanks for your input and interest! it gets me going back at the map and rethink stuff.
[edit]
another thing i am playing around with: destructable stones halfway blocking the main's ramp.they work like a normal wall off but unlike supply or rax they cannot be repaired by scv. once they are gone the Main's ramp is bigger than the usual ramps. what do you think? (you read it here first)
|
I updated the first post. version 1.2 online on battlenet EU
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Gief pictures, faster faster faster, please ^^
|
first post updated with images!
|
I need to check distances, but off the top of my head, I think the rocks at the main are a little more advantageous for Terran/Protoss. Is there somewhere I can grab this map to check my theory? Its a great off-the-cuff idea, but there are some tactics I want to try out.
|
cool map, tried it out and noticed that the left geyser in the bottom main is to far away, prolly same thing with a few other geysers.
|
On September 15 2010 22:18 mousepad wrote:
I need to check distances, but off the top of my head, I think the rocks at the main are a little more advantageous for Terran/Protoss. Is there somewhere I can grab this map to check my theory? Its a great off-the-cuff idea, but there are some tactics I want to try out.
the rocks should actually weaken terran as the main's ramp would not be that wide normally. destroying the rocks - probably during many waves of harassment - should therefore weaken any attempts to wall off. rocks are not repairable and as long as they exist they make walling off unattractive as you have to built around them (or at the lower end of ramp).
what is the best way to get a map on us servers without loosing authorship on upload?
On September 16 2010 00:48 Aina wrote:
cool map, tried it out and noticed that the left geyser in the bottom main is to far away, prolly same thing with a few other geysers.
I do not see any wrong placement of resources. Everything should be well balanced.
Could you elaborate on "too far away" please?
7 and 1o'clock starting location have same resources and same relative positioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2661/ggoverview.png)
![[image loading]](http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5369/ggbases.png)
![[image loading]](http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8578/gg12main.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/8655/gg12nat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5414/gg12third.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1340/gg12gold.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5195/gg12xelnaga.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5463/gg12drop.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/732/gg12barricade.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/6905/gg12ramp.jpg)
