|
[Map] 1vs1 Prophecies - Version 1.3 / 06.10.2010 (online on EU)
- Map size: 128 x 144
- Nat attackable from two sides
- Nat backdoor with destructable rocks, long double-choke and Line of Sight Blockers
- tight centre with two Xel'Nagas and Sightblockers
Changelog
1.0
Final Layout
1.1
fixed Texturing and Visuals
1.2
- slightly repositioned ramp at main
- fixed fps drop problem in centre
- smaller cliff at xel'nagas
1.3
- fixed performance issues
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/yDuCn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/BwFxv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/LIrBv.jpg)
Overviews
+ Show Spoiler +
Close-ups
+ Show Spoiler +
(edited 1.10.2010: new images, version 1.1 online on battlenet eu)
|
2back doors and droppable high ground at the natural makes FE almost useless in my experience. I like the center route but since its not very wide there need to be better flank routes (ie not leading to high ground) and Xel'Naga's shouldn't see middle and flanks.
Do the towers see into the natural?
Other than that, I think the natural is really sweet. Here are changes I would make:
-- remove flat ground back door into natural
-- make high ground behind natural very narrow and add unpathable low ground to prevent sieging the natural's mineral line
-- move main's minerals to other side of main to prevent sieging
-- add another gas geyser to the HY (even if the one you have is high yield)
-- move Xel Naga's to one in center or remove completely
|
Interesting layout--lots of paths that open when the rocks come down.
Some suggestions:
1. Why only one gas geyser at the HY expo? I say go standard and put two--it's already in a relatively hard to defend place.
2. You might scoot the gold expo into the main mass a little and add island expos, or just another expo in the corner reachable by ground, or semi-island too. I want to see a little more expansion options is all.
3. Maybe replace the pits next to the LoSB with doodads instead? I like the idea, but it's a ilttle confusing, visually. Or maybe just snip that little strip on the outside pit--I assume that little thing is not pathable?
|
+ Show Spoiler +
This is just what I would do.
Basically get rid of the "far" entrances into the golds (away from minerals/gas).
move the Nat where that entrance used to be.
move the black/gray cliff closer to your main so u can fit a 2nd ramp to the gold there between it and the watchtower cliff.
I think the West Gold should belong to top player and East Gold to the bottom, but from your design it looks like you planned the opposite? but then the golds are too close to your enemie's third.
Move the destroyable rocks off the ramp and into the spot where CC would go. (this will let people use this area even while not mining/gas to flank/surprise attack without runnin thru the mid. -as long as they control the tower on THEIR side of the map.
It seems like it would just flow better, An easier Nat to defend, flows right into your third which will share a choke with your nat and then from your third moving to high-yield will be easier.
Just my thoughts =). but i REALLY like the layout, i just think some things could be slightly more optimal.
I really like the more-open design, will give all races more maneuvering potential.
Also with the Nat moving the Xelnaga will only provide Defensive advantages, such as seeing an army cross the mid, or an army coming after your high-yield.
nice layout for sure.
|
It also looks like you need to push the top map boundary out a notch--the analyzer pic shows the main and the third have a lot less space than the southern counterparts.
|
There are very interesting ideas in your map, there's really a lot of potential.
Keep the main, natural and 3rd placement. But at the moment the 3rd expansion looks safer than the natural because of the cliff behind the natural. In my opinion cliffs behind naturals aren't an enjoyable feature maps should have. It's just too obvious you're supposed to drop tanks up there even if the towers give vision up to defend. You should reduce the size of the cliff because tanks can siege way back and in order to shoot them you have to go all the way around. Try to reduce the proxymity parts that cliff has with the natural. Shape it more like a V instead of a C so only sides are usefull in case of a drop. That's just an idea but you should try to reduce their effectiveness.
Move your Towers farther from the backdoor entrance to the natural, because you can warp units from the tower to after the rocks and also to the bottom so you could bypass both rocks and access easily to the backdoor. Don't make them overlook the natural cliff because at the moment you can warp units on top of the cliff with that vision. Move the left tower higher and the right one lower.
Also you should switch the rocks that block the gold to the other ramp so you can't just warp units to the bottom and enter the backdoor. And it would bring more interesting gameplay where you could proxy a pylon lower, get the vision of the tower and be able to warp in units on the natural floor. Remove the sight blockers that are close to the natural and the ramp because they favor too much the attacker. It shouldn't be as easy as blistering sands to attack from the backdoor.
And at the moment you have 2 backdoor entrances (the rocks + the ramp up from the gold) that give access to the same area, so you could eventually get rid of the flat backdoor with rocks to favor the ramp up which is more risky and easier to defend. If you keep the flat backdoor with rocks make the backdoor larger so it doesn't unfavors zerg units too much and make it more like a hourglass or a funnel on both sides. So you can have many units and a big concave. Make it larger but keep the tightness where the rocks are. But really you can get rid of this backdoor because if you already switch the rocks of the gold ramps, you've just fixed the backdoor entrance. No need to have 2 overlapping backdoor entrances.
The gold should be closer to the main vertically so there's a choice between taking the easy 3rd or the gold. At the moment the gold is really too far to be tempting. Try to move the left gold to the bottom so the distance left Main-3rd is the same as left main-gold. And move the right gold up.
Behind the 3rd you could extend a bit the cliff behind, because I think it's always interesting to have more possibilities for defense and harass with reapers.
Honestly that's a very good map you have there. The tournament I'm running is full of 2 players maps at the moment but if I run another tournament with independent melee maps that's really a map I will pick.
|
I dislike the cliffs by the natural, but your base placement is interesting. Not bad, but new, and I like it. Your reasoning behind the cliffs and the watchtowers makes sense, I just disagree.
|
what if u put a ramp right behind the natural's mineral line? i think this would make it really interesting and would stop any tank drop crap
|
I think this is a neat looking map, but would probably encourage a lot of one-base play. The natural is very exposed. Zergs would probably go straight to the 3rd.
Not that a map that encourages one base play = a bad map. That's an attitude that a lot of people here have, and I disagree!
But you should know what you're getting into.
|
Hi guys
thanks for your feedback. The map is a really quick sketch without too much thinking-just putting together some ideas.
Your comments really help to reflect about the map, last night I was too tired to do anything but building 
as there are so many ideas and opinions I decided not to answer your posts but tried to list all issues regarding the single objects or positions.
A few words about my ideas for this map:
I wanted to encourage to go to third instead of nat and gold instead of third after having the nat. the map just had to have multiple attacking routes and some highground just somewhere - I know it is ectremly difficult that I have it next tu the Nat. I really like the movement and the many possibilities in this map. any changes made will have to keep the openness of the map and rather add to the possibilities instead of making the gameplay linear.
Some questions and also answers towards your comments:
ON DROPPABLE HIGHGROUND
- I was thinking about the defensive possibilities of the cliff (see "On Xel'Naga")
- what are your thought on dropable highground if the Nat is moved towards the outside of map?
- is the highgorund @Nat to be abused defensively when it is walkable?
- what are your thought on dropable highground @Gold
- what are your thought on dropable highground @Third
- likely will make the Nat cliff unwalkable
ON BACKDOORS INTO NAT
- the gold path into the Nat is more interesting than the flat entrance. I am thinking about connecting the centre route with the gold pathes (between structure and Xel'naga)
- the flat backdoor was meant to create a super quick route into the centre of map
ON SIEGING THE NAT
- do you guys think that a Nat behind unusable highground is too dangerous? I wanted to make a wall off at the Nat towards third possible but not very attractive. in my understanding it is more attractive to block between narrow centre and third?
ON FLANKING ROUTES (GOLD PATHES + EXPANSIONS)
- The Positioning of the Gold Expansion with DRs towards the closer opponent was actually meant to motivate going for the Gold expansion instead of third. Also it should give a possibilitiy for an agressive push.
- in my understanding the gold @10 belongs to the south-player. but actually this set up is meant to ask such questions: should I take the gold @10 oder @4
- both gold pathes were high ground (!) areas. this is why I put less gas there. Will add one geysier.
- gold expansions will be moved a bit towards map's equator
- the low level of gold expo makes it harder to attack via this path as you have to fight up the ramp at third and nat respectivly
- either way: the Gold expo was made to have an additional attacking direction. I will keep two entrances. Question is: do I need DRs to block it or only at the minerals?
ON XEL'NAGAS
- towers see a few mineral patches of NAT
- the idea that towers see the droppable cliff was rather meant to see defensive drops up there
- used two towers to give equal knowlegde of centre but different of gold pathes
- warping units: I have to check out all possibilities, as it is likely that I move them a bit towards Third and make terrain non-droppable this might not longer be a point though.
ON EXPANDING
- do you think I will need more possible expansions?
- is the unsecure Nat the only reason that the map is likely "one-base"?
ON VISUAL DESIGN
- doodads will also occupy some strategic places to prevent cliffjumping
- also I will rethink the holes near the third, although I like it themewise for a cave.
ON ADDITIONAL PATHES
- I like the idea of having a ramp from centre towards gold instead of flat backdoor
|
|
|
Is it me or does the map editor say that the mains are more open than the center of the map? Might want to think that one through a little more.
|
i just dont like nat's with 2 entrances especially on opposite sides.
|
Comment:
Save Nats, less direct attacking pathes.
alt2 with gold accessable from both sides
alt3 with only one ramp, extra path around X'N towards LoSBs
Please note that I narrowed the choke towards Nat!
I am still thinking of a possibility to get an extra attaing path towards Nat aka backdoor without making players feel to unsecure, probably by giving defending players highround overwatch on addaitional path from gold.
I understand the critic against the backdoor but I just want to emphasize possibilites of attacking without controlling centre.
UPDATE ALTERNATIVE 2
+ Show Spoiler +
UPDATE ALTERNATIVE 3
+ Show Spoiler +
|
No no don't make the update alternatives 2 and 3 ! The placement of the natural was the originality of your map now it looks like most melee maps. Keep your natural placement and keep the backdoor because it's not that powerful to harass through here, you probably will have your army close anyways. Just put rocks in the ramp so you can't take this path right from the start, just like the 3rd on kulas ravine or steppes of war. There are a lot more possibilities with the back door.
After that you could make the gold a bit closer to make it an option and it's closer for one player than the other. If the natural cliff is unwalkable then the cliff is fine, if it's droppable try to make it smaller to reduce the threat.
edit : If your natural cliff isn't droppable you don't really need to move your towers.
edit2 : your map's openness is fine there's no need to make the middle more open, you don't relly have chokes so the map is pretty open already.
I made a picture of the changes you should do :
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/4YGmD.jpg)
|
On September 19 2010 20:24 chuky500 wrote:No no don't make the update alternatives 2 and 3 ! The placement of the natural was the originality of your map now it looks like most melee maps. Keep your natural placement and keep the backdoor because it's not that powerful to harass through here, you probably will have your army close anyways. Just put rocks in the ramp so you can't take this path right from the start, just like the 3rd on kulas ravine or steppes of war. There are a lot more possibilities with the back door. After that you could make the gold a bit closer to make it an option and it's closer for one player than the other. If the natural cliff is unwalkable then the cliff is fine, if it's droppable try to make it smaller to reduce the threat. edit : If your natural cliff isn't droppable you don't really need to move your towers. edit2 : your map's openness is fine there's no need to make the middle more open, you don't relly have chokes so the map is pretty open already. I made a picture of the changes you should do : + Show Spoiler +
@chuky500
that is kind of the reaction a wanted to provoke by cutting the extra path - my aim is stated this in my post (any change has to keep/produce extra pathes).
so thanks a lot for this quick confirmation!
I will move the X'N back a bit so that it covers the highyield and rethink the extra ramp.
|
new version, please see first post,
my can be found on batlenet EU, please search: Prophecies
|
This version is much better, nice job.
|
This is as cool map, I like it and I think it has really great watch tower locations that you don't normally see in user maps, tho I can't say I'd take those mid expos against a meching terran XD
|
I forgot to mention that it is on Batlenet EU!
So please share your thoughts. Really interested if you think about it: all high ground is still open for drop/harass.
|
I am quite confident with the positoning of the watchtowers (having one in centre does not give any additional info). also the double-choke between gold and natural(backdoor) works in my opinion.
some things I would like to have more feedback about:
* LoSBs
* dropable highround between gold and fourth expansion
* are there any more suggestions for changes in the layout?
* should the goldarea be smaller?
* highround for gold area instead of lowground?
* highround for fourth expansion to favour it over gold and have longer games?
* should I set the third expansion a bit back (towards norh/south) to make it saver?
|
updated first post with first steps in adding textures.
|
updated first post with images of version 1.1 which I consider the final version if there are no real bugs.
|
Bases in the top left/bottom right look really easy to defend. Maybe force the defender to destroy some DRs to get access to that base?
Textured version looks great imo!
|
On October 01 2010 11:48 Antares777 wrote:Bases in the top left/bottom right look really easy to defend. Maybe force the defender to destroy some DRs to get access to that base? Textured version looks great imo!
thx for thumbs, I'm quite happy with texturing, too.
@semi-island
topleft and bottomright expo is lowground and fourth/semi-island. it is easy to defend as there is only one ramp, but if you try to get there early your forces are split. I think the relative save character is okay for a semi-island. You can take it instead of third for a defensive stand but then you might be a bit slow to react towards centre/gold. I thought it is just not attractive enoug to put destructble rocks between minerals.
also I did not want to have any DRs but at the nat's backdoor.
|
I like the design of the map, though I got some weird FPS drops when scrolling over the middle area starting with naturals. Rarely have FPS drops with smaller maps. Anyways, sent you a replay too, check PM.
|
|
|
On October 04 2010 06:42 Ongweldt wrote:
I like the design of the map, though I got some weird FPS drops when scrolling over the middle area starting with naturals. Rarely have FPS drops with smaller maps. Anyways, sent you a replay too, check PM.
thanks for the replay. probably a miss-cklick? as there is nothing wrong with the passing.
regarding the fps: I think the four animated beams are a bit to much. I'll get rid of at least two when publishing another version.
|
coming changes:
- no tower doodads in centre, more fps
- ramp moved towards choke into natural to prevail units from running in dead end
do you have any more suggestions?
please help me to make this map better!
|
I'm not sure but the xel naga tower shouldn't have so much space. You can have a siege tank on the far side of the high ground and a marine to hold the tower and the tank will almost shoot anything in the middle. You can have 3 production buildings up there it's a bit much.
|
chuky500:
good point.
moved Xel'Naga 2 units towards centre, made platform smaller, ramp stays the same.
+ Show Spoiler +
another thing I'd like to know your opinion on:
+ Show Spoiler +
platform added next to semi-island for drop harass.
edit:
1.2 online (EU)
- slightly repositioned ramp at main
- fixed fps drop problem
- smaller cliff at xel'nagas
|
1.3 online (EU)
- fixed performance issues
|
Wow, this map really evolved nicely, great work!
|
Playing this map, I would most likely skip the natural and go straight to the third, cause then I can expand right to the gold afterward.
But I really like the layout of the map.
|
On October 07 2010 01:23 dimfish wrote:
Wow, this map really evolved nicely, great work!
thx! and your mapanalyzer really helped deciding between alternatives!
On October 07 2010 03:13 TedJustice wrote:
Playing this map, I would most likely skip the natural and go straight to the third, cause then I can expand right to the gold afterward.
But I really like the layout of the map.
I think the aspect you describe is one of the strong point of this layout. you can decide to go third and gold, nat and third nat and gold(behind rocks) or nat and semi-island as first and second expansion. there arequite some options and decisions possible here.
is somebody interested to have this map on a us server?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/tcsoW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/yHP6u.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/aVrLp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/x6HE2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RUio6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qQn9K.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/lSCxB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DW6DZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/k1IsG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Py3jG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Ou0PZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af247/TnTPhotography55/somemap.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DgAIA.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MUIXt.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DZbHN.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ScPDU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/NfWPo.jpg)
