Idea for the map: The idea was to make a 4 start position map where all the start point are in the middle of the map. I was not sure if it was possible or I if would be able to get it right. The name was something that came to mind, but has not really much to do with the map. If you got a better idea for the name, please post it!
Map is online on the EU-server. An older version is on the NA-server.
Details - Four possible start positions. - Four Watchtowers on the map - one in the middle of each side. - One gas at the natural is siegeable from the high ground behind the rocks but no mineral patches and not the CC. - The main mineral line is not siegeable from outside the main. - Main and Natural Hatchery can be connected using one creep tumor. - Tile set is Braxis Alpha. - 18 bases (counting start positions), two of which are gold. The two possible Thirds for each player have only 7 min patches; the golds have 6; the rest 8.
a01 - internal a02 - internal a03 - first post on TL, first upload a04 - lots of changes: - added an other base for each player. - made the mains smaller and moved it closer to the natural. - added more watchtowers too battle the long ways a bit. - closed off the natural vs the side lane a bit - you can't get behind the mineral line from the top. - hole added to make wall off vs side lane easier. - made wall off vs bottom/top lane possible. - gold now on high ground with a ramp on the middle lane. - added a opening in the horizontal middle lanes - blocked by destructible debris. - cut away lots of the space at the sides of the map. - lots of small changes & added eye candy. a05 - never realeased but pics posted in the thread: - main change was the East and West, adding a base and high ground. - now only one Watchtower on the sides. - made the map a lot smaller. a06 & a06b: - moved the semi-island more to the vertical middle and added a back exit/entrance, which isn't blocked (it was lvl 2 in a06 is now a06b lvl 1). - moved the naturals more to the bottom/top end of the map and closer to the main ramp. - added a coke point for vertical play (-> see moving of semi-island) - small changes all over the place. a07: - removed the gold base at 6 and 12 o'clock. - made the 3 and 9 o'clock bases into gold bases (only six patches). - adjusted the 5&7 and 11&1 o'clock bases and the 6 and 12 o'clock high grounds to the changes. - some more eye candy. a08: - redid the surrounding of the mains to make the mineral line unsiegeable again. - widened the smoke path near the mains to prevent a line of sight from the high ground into the main. - changed the lighting (comes on a bit strong in the screen shot from the editor - better in game) 1.0: - changed position of the horizontal thirds inwards. - lots of small clean ups - lots of polish
Please tell me what you think of the map. Feel free to publish on any other server if you like. I would be really happy if someone would play this and give me feedback.
This looks a little too big, but I'll have to play on it if I get a chance before I say that for sure. The corner 3rds are the saving grace; without them it'd just be (4) Desert Oasis. I would recommend a tower at each of 3, 6, 9, 12, or maybe just in the middle, so that you can't be accidentally backstabbed when both people move out along different routes.
This spawn setup is tough to pull off, and it looks barely playable here. One of the problems is that you have a lot of dead space in the middle to prevent tank abuse on mains, but this creates a bunch of long pathways that don't really lead anywhere useful. Notice that there's no good forward position between vertical spawns, just a chokepoint at the edge and a long alternate route through the center. Horizontal spawns is much better, but has a similar problem with positioning after 3 bases. I would think about changing those long equatorial gaps, they seem to divide the map too emphatically.
Thanks for the feedback EatThePath. The long ways are a problem I am aware of, and forgot to put in the Problems section I was hesitant to put watchtowers near the middle as it would grant vision into the mains, at the moment. I will think about what you said and how it can be implemented into the map.
Updated the map to version a04. It's online on the EU server.
Lots of changes. Mainly another base per player, and redone 3 and 9 o'clock and more XWT all over the map. Please keep giving me feedback it really helps a lot - and might make this map good someday :D
edit: misplaced minerals at the new expos fixed - close up picture changed.
You're going in the right direction, but you still have a long way to go. You need to identify the core idea of this map and be prepared to change anything else. I believe the foundation of the map is four bases with an outside path (the reverse of most maps). To have a reasonable air distance, there is space between the bases, so this might as well be a center pathway (as you have). The problem is that the distance between naturals is quite large when you place the outwards from the mains. You have given a close 3rd and 4th, but the 4th (near the gold) is hard to take in horizontal spawns. Zerg would have a lot of trouble keeping that base against a horizontal spawns terran. The alternative is to go reeeeally far away.
Let me go over what is good so far. I like the expansions except the semi island. The rocks serve little purpose, and that base would be more interesting if you moved it from the corner to the east and west flanks. This would provide a 3rd away from your opponent in horizontal spawns, and shrink the distance to subsequent bases around the outside away from opponent. (This is like the current thirds in vertical spawns. Vertical spawns are currently the best looking positions.)
You can tuck the current 3rd closer towards the main, away from the top/bottom edge of the map.
The towers are good, but they could be placed better. They serve the role of watching your back, but they are very one-dimensional in purpose that way. Revealing part of the main should be avoided unless it's very intentional. They would improve by being more contestable and watching more than one node / intersection, or not watching every part of a given area.
This is how I would proceed if I was going to make adjustments: this really needs to be 10-15% smaller in dimension, and could probably use another neutral base or two. I would make a new file and see what it looks like to cram everything, adjust it until you can't, and then see what you've learned. Apply that to the original. You might achieve this just by drawing on paper if your eyes are good at distances.
Basically, nothing is safe from changes except the general orientation of main + natural. See what happens with experimentation and take the best results.
There is no room to move the mains closer together than this. The third is already pretty cramped, and I will have to think about the gold again, maybe.
What i like about the changes is the left and right. The XWT does not see the narrow paths from the middle what gives them more purpose, seeing as they are pretty risky to take that close to the enemy main.
What i don't like is that the terrain for horizontal and vertical is now very similar, but maybe its for the best.
I will play around with this some more, before fixing all the texturing and doodads.
Again thanks for the long text EatThePath! edit: Oh, and I cannot move the third closer to the main, cause the main mineral line will get siegeable, what isn't all that funny^^. But now it is even further away what isn't all that nice too
Ha, I'm sorry I fueled your insomnia. I also lost sleep over a map. ;D
This looks much better imo! The E/W towers and bases work quite well. It's a departure from the original layout, but I like having 3,6,9,12 bases because the midgame-lategame will have a lot of action in the middle as the players push those expos.
There are only two remaining problems and I don't think they ruin it. The size is still pretty humongous... 160x152 is quite large, there are 20 bases, and the diagonal distances are so big. Despite this, the vertical nat2nat is dangerously short.
Well, I don't see how you can do much more, you're correct that you've pinched in as much as possible. And for a big map, this looks quite playable. So that's okay.
As for the vertical distance, I suppose you can always take your natural at the labeled 3rd, which is quite a bit safer, and not too far away. It's still rough for zerg to need so many creep tumors (looks like 3), but it's better than metalopolis close positions since you at least have an option.
The semi-islands are more tolerable with this new version for some reason. I think it's because they're not mandatory. I'm not thrilled about the base there at all though, because it promotes turtling in your corner with 4 bases. If both players do that... not a very exciting game for the first 20 minutes. Then again, for the same reason it's a hedge against all-in type play, because you can be economic without extending too far, and I'm always in favor of providing choices in expansion pattern.
The aisles at the equator are my favorite part of the map now, they look quite fun in a long game. The initial textures/doodads look pretty good so far.
Btw, you're welcome for the criticism. I like to talk too much anyway.
I really like the unique layout. It does remind me of desert oasis a bit, but seems much more macro oriented. Adding a backdoor blocked by destructible rocks seems like it would make slower ground armies more viable. If you wanted to increase the vertical nat-to-nat distance you could remove some of the area between the XWTs and add in a larger ramp near the middle. -->+ Show Spoiler +
On February 14 2011 06:55 Kujawa wrote: its 4 player desert oasis but it looks cool. Mby just widen the air positions a little.
I don't know how to do that without making the ground paths even longer. And I think the meta game will have to deal with strong air play on this map no matter what I do.
@SmashHammer: The idea is good, but it wouldn't work with the changes I posted earlier. Game play wise I think I need to be careful I don't end up with just three vertical and three horizontal lines. So I think I would rather try to move the naturals a bit more to the south/north.
@EatThePath: As I said above moving the natural more to the south/north would be a way to lengthen the vertical distance. I could do something like this, to take care of the 4base chill hard game play: + Show Spoiler +
- Yeay for MS Paint + Touchpad!
But I am not sure how smart that would be for the horizontal game play. I will work on this this evening - not this night! I promise myself!
Also: Keep on the long posts EatThePath! They help so much! And thanks to Kujawa & SmashHammer, every input helps a lot.
Ahh, sorry I didn't notice the updated picture. Also I think the semi-islands would be easy for Terran to take as a natural because there is nothing blocking the landing place. I would recommend moving the DRs to where a cc/hatch/nexus would be placed.
@SmashHammer: The DR are there so it would be possible to Tank drop the natural without a cliff and a possibility to stop it without Observers or your one drops, just by destroying the rocks first. But I don't think it is worth the trouble to keep it in the map. Also the drops wouldn't work with Stalkers and so on
I don't think the Terran taking a Semi-Island is that much of a problem in sc2 as it was in sc:bw.
I posted an idea above how to change the natural an the semi-isle. If I was to make the changes, it would be possible for every race to take the former semi-isle without destroy the rocks. And only good in horizontal positions, if at all.
But its a nice point and it makes the changes much more likely
I updated the post to the latest version of the map (a06.b).
I applied the changes I posted in my last posts. The map is now on the EU server in the last version. If someone would play test this I would be very happy. As always I am grateful for any criticism.
I also did what EatThePath told me to do long a ago, and moved the semi-isles more towards the vertical center. I added a backdoor to them, which is not blocked. So one can take the expansion before destroying the rocks. Also one can battle tanks on the high ground (what expansions are now) more easily. I am not sure what the open door to a high ground means for proxy pylons and siege tanks, but i don't think there is a spot for all that to be completely imba.
Best version yet. Of course I approve of the new side bases, hehe. Can tanks reach anything from behind the rocks? It looks like they can hit the closest geyser and possibly one or two of the mineral patches. I would try to arrange it so tanks can't hit anything. Being in range alone isn't unfair, but the tanks can always back up with all that space behind the rocks, making it unfair for shorter range units to try and fight without the rocks down, and going around is very far. Also, I'm a little worried about a terran push coming down that high ground ramp with tanks. If you could reorient that ramp so it's farther away from the natural, possibly diagonal, it would be better. It makes a choke point, which combined with highground makes a tank based push really deadly. I like the choke point it makes with the main cliff though.
This map is now one of the biggest maps I'm willing to consider as playable, despite its enormous size, and I'm curious how it would work. I would try to play some games if you sent it to me to put on NA.
Best version so far, it's really starting to pull together nicely. About your concerns in the first post..
The cross positions are not very well tested.
This is a concern for me too as (assuming your analyzers are updated in the OP as well) 191 distance from main to main, then 167 from nat to nat for cross positions is a very far distance. The good part is it would make it much better macro games and since the natural/thirds are still quite in the open it'll still be very fun. Any chance you could upload some replays on this map? Be fun to see a player vs player battle on this.
Too many expansions? Yeah, quite possibly might be, If you could somehow manage to take out at most 4 expansions it'd be perfect imo, but otherwise I don't think it's that much of a problem. I'm also wondering why the 3 and 9 o'clock expansions aren't gold expansions as well? They are in the middle and would be hard to defend as well.
The Natural backdoor/high ground might proof problematic. Is there a reason you want those destructible rocks blocking off that highground/quick third? To me if the 3rd is easier to take then it just makes the games seem much more macro oriented.
My Photoshop skills are underwhelming. Practice makes perfect
First: Thanks again for all the great and indepth posts!
Secondly: I Updated the map. Main change: I removed the gold base at 6 and 12 o'clock and made the 3 and 9 o'clock bases golden. I think those two bases where the ones I can take away without changing much, so I think I am right in doing so. The only thing I was afraid of is that it makes the middle S-N-path less attractive to push in the cross late game. But as the 3rd and a potential 4th or 5th are still perfectly attackable from 6 and 12 o'clock, I think it's fine. What do you guys think?
Thirdly: The high-ground next to the naturals: I would like to leave it as it is now and test it in played games before going too deep into theory over this. I considered moving the ramp to the natural to the outside of the choke. But couldn't get it to work for the following reasoning. The way it is now you have the high-ground up to the rocks as a defenders advantage. If I move the ramp this will not only get lost but also will the attacker have an high-ground even without taking down the rocks - this is unacceptable imo. If I move the rocks to the other entrance of the high-ground it is way to far away to defend even against early lings/zelots and so on - I think. And then it would open a third way into the natural really early. Same goes for removing the rocks completely.
I got a few reps where I (platinum Toss) get crushed by a diamond Zerg pretty badly. What could hint on the strong muta play on this map, but is much more likely to hint at the few hours I have actually been playing sc2 in the last weeks. I will see about uploading them.
I Updated the map. Mostly fixed the mains, as the one geyser had become siegeable when I made the map smaller. Also one could glimpse into the main from the high ground of the gold bases. I widened the paths with smoke, so this is no longer possible.
I also redid the lighting - it seems a bit strong in the screenshots from the editor - but I think it looks good in game.
Map Update. Ver. 1.0 (-> Wuhu!) Lots of small chances and it looks much nicer now. I tested it with two friend. We thought it played really nice. Vertical spawns are pretty aggressive but its all good.
I really like this map. In my opinion it has come a long way when looking at the earlier versions.
The map structure really works quite well. This outer ring of expansions, with mains more in the middle, and the horizontal and vertical spoke-like attack paths. What I especially like is how spawning positions change the play on the map, but somehow a lot still is the same: -In horizontal or vertical positions, the way along the ring is the clear route of attack, with a tower to control vision. The spokes provide alternative paths, with longer walking distance but more secrecy. Also, this ring structure allows to expand either towards your opponent or away from him. -In cross positions the distances become big, but close air distances keep the threat of aggression present and the game dynamic. Also, suddenly it is no longer clear from where an attack is coming, so the longer walking distance is balanced by the need to keep track of where opposing forces are positioned to not get caught out of position. -Close air distances certainly play an important role, but by it seems not too difficult to protect main, natural and a third from air harass, as a well protected main constricts the air access to the expansions behind it a lot. -As it is mirror symmetric and not rotational symmetric no player has an unfair advantage just through spawns, both players have identical access to expansions and attack paths.
So regarding overall map layout, it seems like a great blend of the good features of both metalopolis and desert oasis.
Regarding the finer structures of the map, I like how the natural is protecting the main, while simultaneously pointing away from the opponent regardless of spawns. Given the threat of air harass, that is an important feature (and the reason the original desert oasis failed). Also, the empty space at various parts in the middle restring cliff hopping paths are a nice touch.
I am torn on those alternative paths from third to natural in vertical spawns. On one hand, that little cliff there might provide an additional defends advantage, on the other hand an additional attack path in positions where you already have the closest walking distance might be too much. I guess it comes down whether it is more of an a defenders advantage or attackers advantage.
The way some the minerals of the thirds in horizontal positions are attackable from the vertical middle path is nice, but I do not know if that makes that expansion too vulnerable. But given how a lot of expansions are available that seems fine, if you do not like that one take a different one. It also rewards map control and awareness, in contrast to massing a big army and a-moving.
I am no terran player, so it is tough to judge the size of the main to put down a lot of production buildings without exposing them to attacks from the low ground(siege, colossus, broodlords).
Overall balance seems good, with each race having some features they like and some they do not like so much.
Regarding aesthetics, the map has nothing special going for it, it is no beautiful garden or mystic shrine, it is a derelict space station. However, I have no objects as it looks and feels a lot like that, some derelict station floating somewhere in space. Nobody cares what its former function was, now you fight over it because it gives positional advantage to whoever controls it in some bigger conflict. I like how it is easy to construct this kind of story from visuals alone.
Which brings me to my biggest point of critique: the name "Divided Solution". It evokes nothing of the story the aesthetics tell. Any other name, say "Station 426", would be better.
So in conclusion, after a post which grew much longer than I had planned, I like this map. It is fun to play on it. It gives opportunity for a lot of play styles without forcing any, creating exciting games. Some details might(or might not) need some changes, but that needs a ton of play testing to figure out, by many different players. And in the end, if my biggest complaint is the name, then it is a fine map and deserves more attention than it is currently getting. GL in MotM #5.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WmRoI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bpMTo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img.imgur.com/i8gw3h.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QLZVU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VHmc5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OJHKe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HoiI5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wkLiD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KrwKf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uudoB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5jCsz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ytmod.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6PrM8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aBkZp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8XpUd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/swx36.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/htxJO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2SUXA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GqQEv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WhKDg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5mw0z.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/r1nBu.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Kzeg0.jpg)
