|
[M] (2) Tendency
PUBLISHED ON EU
IDEA
My main idea was to make a U-shaped map, but eventually I came up with a Q turned upside down. The maps strong point is its assymetrical play in longer matches. While Main, nat and third can be controlled by both, all other expansions provoce an assymetrical use of the map. Take the single and far away gold expansion that is in close flying distance to the mains, try to control the map by setting up a base on the triple vespene highground or take the fourth that is situated on a cliff together with your opponent potential fourth. Once you have taken the close and save Nat the setup will force lots of decisions on how to spread over the map, how to control the space and utilise both highgrounds.
FEATURES
* open 1v1 melee map
* map size 128x128
* destructable rocks open extra path into fourth expansion(s) plateau
* destructable rocks blocking gold expansion
* one Xel'naga in centre to peek into both main pathes
* rather short cliffwalk distance between mains
* additional bigger choke into Nat via Third
OVERVIEW
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rsmG9.jpg)
MAP ANALYZER
MORE IMAGES
+ Show Spoiler +perspective main nat third fourth high yield triple vespene xel'naga watchtower
Looking forward to your critic and suggestions!
|
Map analyzer pic is wrong.
|
On October 25 2010 19:17 Leprechaun Tree wrote:
Map analyzer pic is wrong.
what do you mean?
colors are different, but the image is readable as before. right now some people are trying around with new color schemes. I guess this is like a field study (:
To help you reading the map:
Mains are at 12 and 9. both close expansions are the naturals, third expansions at 3 and 6.
edited: added regularly colored map analyzer image.
|
It claims everything is an Island, and that's mostly the issue. Your Main is an island, etc.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
So you want to force the players either taking bot expos bot or the HY?
|
On October 25 2010 21:40 Amadi wrote:
It claims everything is an Island, and that's mostly the issue. Your Main is an island, etc.
that is a normal problem when there are no playerstarts on the map. I do not see this as an issue...
@ dezi:
I do not want to force anything. still I think there are some decisons to make after claiming third?
do you think the setup becomes too important?
|
United States10552 Posts
I feel like the 3rd is way too easy to take, and also, the bottom right two expandsion are easily secured with well placed tanks. terrans could leave the destructible rocks opposite of their side of the map, and place tanks around chokes. Zerg will have a really diffuclt time surrouding at these choke points, so more air tactics will be more effective.
|
On October 25 2010 23:44 FlaShFTW wrote:
I feel like the 3rd is way too easy to take, and also, the bottom right two expandsion are easily secured with well placed tanks. terrans could leave the destructible rocks opposite of their side of the map, and place tanks around chokes. Zerg will have a really diffuclt time surrouding at these choke points, so more air tactics will be more effective.
1. THIRD - yes, it is quite easy to take. I will think about a wider ramp to make it harder to keep. I think this map become increasngly interesting the longer the game goes.
2. FOURTH EXPANSIONS - the idea here is that securing one of the two fourth expansions kind of blocks the opponent from taking the fourth and shifts the maps setup because he will take high yield or triple vespene. While you are correct that terran can easily turtle here he would give map control away (he would have to position some tanks at fourth and more back in front of nat. with gld and triple vespene a zerg or protoss can out-macro. I understand your point on the rocks. I discussed this point with someone else lately taking your point of view. counter-argument was that with the DRs still up, the terran becomes even less mobile.
3. ZERG - might have a problem braking the defense of a turtling terran on fourth base(s) but has a lot of space on this map. this map is really open (!) pretty much everywhere except the two(!) chokes into natural. take a look at the central ramp into fourth. is is almost triple the size of a regular main's ramp. I can make it wider, too.
I am interested if you guys think that the base-setup is too experimental ('shared' triple vespene, gold and double fourth)?
should there be more possible expansion? I was thinking about a 'back door' into natural behind the main (towards outer edge) leading to gold where i can make some space for a small regular expansion or mineral only, e.g. when player is contained on main+nat.
|
That's a really cool map. I usually don't like the Scrap Station kind of maps but this one looks fun. As many others I'm not sure about that double expansion in the bottom right. Maybe place some destructible debris at each choke?
Also I really don't get why so many people use those 2 choke natural entrances after they were criticised so much on Kulas.
|
This map is slick like Rick
I like it a lot! Flop, the two choke natural on Kulas was WAY nastier than on Tendency because 1) it was wider I think (maybe samro do an openess pic of kulas nat versus yours, side-by-side?) and 2) because kuals nats were a ridiculous hop and skip away from each other. Oh yeah, AND the high ground in between nats could cliff you. So nasty, this map so nice
I do like the possibilities for expanding into the map. You cna play it safe and go nat->easy third or you can go for something more risky in the middle, and you have three flavors: high yield (good mineral rate), triple gas (stinky and delicious like garlic bread) or go for the more easily defended bases in the SE and potentially end up with both of them.
It's cool!
|
Third is really easy to defend.
I like your theory, but I'm not sure it works in practice. I don't think it's as simple as one player takes both fourths and the other player takes the triple gas and gold expansions. The triple gas is pretty impossible to take since it's in the middle of the map and on the most direct attack path. Taking the triple gas expansion feels a lot harder to defend than taking one of the fourths.
I don't know.
|
Openness
Kulas Vs Tendency
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5xBFN.jpg)
Tendency's chokes are quite a bit smaller. also -unlike to Kulas - the closer choke can be controlled from the main's highground and the distance to the main choke is much closer, too.
@dimfish: glad you like the possibilities of this map. when I designde the double fourth, my idea was that one could force the opponent to commit, e.g. ' when i take fourt prior to third you have to pressure me immediatly or take gold or try to take map control and triple vespene > otherwise i will end up with a free expansion or at least one more expansion (main>nat>fourth>third or as a terran main>nat>fourth>fourth).
i would just love if some people who play sc2 more competitivly than i do, could test this map a bit. probably fourth should have one mineral patch less each.
|
I like the triple gas expansion, but you might wanna have some rocks there and maybe add some more mineral fields. But I like this map, it allows for the player to expand away from their opponent.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Just yet noticed the one base in the mid has tripple gas. This way i think they layout and expo placement is fine. Only possible change i can suggest right now is an additional ramp to the 3rd (initially blocked) and the current one slightly replaced (further away).
|
On October 26 2010 06:44 dezi wrote:
Only possible change i can suggest right now is an additional ramp to the 3rd (initially blocked) and the current one slightly replaced (further away).
I thought about that one too, but if you block the 2nd ramp it's gonna be even easier to take it early on, if you block the one close to your base it's gonna be way too easy for a terran to go up with tanks and siege the natural which I believe is possible by looking at the distance.
|
I think controlling the XNWT is the only focus on this map right now, because if you control that, you also control the 4 and 5 o'clock expansions (not to mention the center ramp). Now if I control the XNWT, and you want to counter-attack my base, the only attacking lane is narrow and flanked by my main's high ground which should be pretty easy to defend. Not only that, but if I control the XNWT, I can threaten to control the area that leads to your main and two expansions if you move your army out of that position.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On October 26 2010 07:11 FlopTurnReaver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 06:44 dezi wrote:
Only possible change i can suggest right now is an additional ramp to the 3rd (initially blocked) and the current one slightly replaced (further away). I thought about that one too, but if you block the 2nd ramp it's gonna be even easier to take it early on, if you block the one close to your base it's gonna be way too easy for a terran to go up with tanks and siege the natural which I believe is possible by looking at the distance.
You should be more concerned about siege tanks close to the main.
|
On October 26 2010 07:33 A3iL3r0n wrote:
I think controlling the XNWT is the only focus on this map right now, because if you control that, you also control the 4 and 5 o'clock expansions (not to mention the center ramp). Now if I control the XNWT, and you want to counter-attack my base, the only attacking lane is narrow and flanked by my main's high ground which should be pretty easy to defend. Not only that, but if I control the XNWT, I can threaten to control the area that leads to your main and two expansions if you move your army out of that position.
I understand your point. is your conclusion that the only place to position ones forces is infront of own third with a few forces at the XNWT?
|
second ramp into third for quicker pushes and harassment
|
Why not use the straight cliff for ramp? Seems a bit weird this way.
|
On October 27 2010 07:06 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
Why not use the straight cliff for ramp? Seems a bit weird this way.
if i made a bigger version of the central (45°) ramp it would mostly benefit the defender cause it would looks towards space in front of main. extra ramp towards XN helps small groups of attackers to sneak in. if you want to move in and out for some harassment here two ramps are better than one big I think
|
Second expansion too easily defended, otherwise seems pretty good.
|
I'm not talking about the 45° ramp. More like this:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bB6y5.jpg)
|
reworked these two ramps and the nat choke.
ramps
the one on the right towards centre stays, but is a bit wider.
the one left is gone and replace by a ramp analog to the one on the right side.
-> - hopefully FlopTurnReaver thinks it looks less goofy (:
choke
only two really small holes and one small cliff arranged in a linear order
The nat is a bit bigger, because separation is moved slightly towards centre, while both chokes are wider. Both chokes 'directions' are different and so is the form (unsure if this is better for attacker or defender. I guess moving through the choke towards third is more common and then the mains cliff is not a factor anymore)
-> the is another sneeky attacking path through third into nat
the choke's design is something different I think. is it even a choke? I am unsure about its effect. So your thoughts are very much appreciated!
ah, and here are the images
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Well this of course changes everything because there's suddenly an additional entrance into the natural that would have to be walled off or something. If that's part of the concept I like it, looks much better than before. Doesn't have to be a bad thing either, moonglade had something similar too. I think with the new choke setup it's gonna be really hard to defend an early expansion, especially with that extra entrance now. Don't wanna judge about it though, would have to be tested how it plays out.
Btw. I find it funny that all the germans spell it "centre" :D
|
On October 28 2010 08:09 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
Well this of course changes everything because there's suddenly an additional entrance into the natural that would have to be walled off or something. If that's part of the concept I like it, looks much better than before. Doesn't have to be a bad thing either, moonglade had something similar too. I think with the new choke setup it's gonna be really hard to defend an early expansion, especially with that extra entrance now. Don't wanna judge about it though, would have to be tested how it plays out.
Btw. I find it funny that all the germans spell it "centre" :D
using the ramp as an additional entrance is part of the concept. this is also the reason why I wrote have to try out if the coke still works or not, if the nat is to easy to attack and so on. i will end with either extra entrance or wider choke I guess.
centre instead of center is british english. you are a frenchy or frensh speaking Swiss?
|
Wtf I had no idea about that :o
No I'm not. Btw. what's frensh now? :D
But on topic, I'm really curious how this will end up^^
|
(updated images on first page)
changes:
new choke into nat and additional choke designed between both fourth to help both player to take fourth at the same time.
online on battlenetEU
I especially need feedback on the 'assymetrical setup by play', the fourth-fourth-situation and the Nat's choke.please let me know what you think!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8aI0j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Pjd3q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Rzo2u.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OUUcL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/x7tOW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vSfj3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/I0Aen.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8wrzk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YRwaZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Opwxk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/EooIW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/UVJAo.jpg)
