|
|
|
I don't like how there is a ledge at the natural that can simply be walked up, I think it's a cool idea but maybe add destructible rocks at the back entrance so that it has to be a drop and people can't simply put cannons or bunkers up there early on or else this map will be a nightmare for zerg.
Other than that I like the layout, reasonably well placed 3rd and additional expansions all over the map. I can see this map becoming epic in the late game but because of that ramp to the cliff over looking the natural we might see games end early.
|
I agree with emc, you're going to have to put rocks there. If you are familiar with iCCup Starchild by prodiG, the natural on that map had a similar feature, which was tested, and deemed that destructible rocks were necessary. Then again, that backdoor led to the third expansion, which clearly justifies the use of destructible rocks. The path behind your natural is very narrow and seems very similar in distance from approaching the natural at the front, or the back, giving the player an equidistant choice of attack routes to the natural. As Zerg, I'd be terrified of a Terran mid game MM push up that narrow path, because there would be very little that I could do about it. Before you make any major decision on what to do, test a few TvZ games on it and at least make it unbuildable, if it hasn't been done already.
I must say, this is a really nice map, both for gameplay and aesthetics. I like the expansion layout, how the thirds and fourths are positioned away from your opponent, and how the extra expansion is so open to make up for the fact that it would be extremely late game. I think that it fits well in the map, even though it is technically an extra base. Are those purple lights that you used, or doodads that you colored?
|
I like most of this map, I even like the ledge at the natural, it makes one be weary, and I can see some fights happening on the lip of that ledge. But I do wonder if siege tanks on their wouldnt just cover the back way and the route to the expo too well.
Though there is only really 2 things I'm not a fan of. 1. The ramps on the attackers side to the gold, is that space choked or is it bigger than it seems in the image? (not a fan if it is choked)
2. The gold infront of the third. It looks like it might be too close to the third where siege tanks could hit beyond the fortress and too far for the attaker comming up the third large ramp. I did alot of testing with that on another map I made, and if the range ends about 1/2 way through (or just over half way) where a fortress would go then that worked out quite nice and kept the gold vulnerable - defensive against melee but not so much against any range. If it went too far past the fortress it made turtling much easier. If that is the goal then cool - it looks like it is, but I'm just wondering if it might be just a little too defensive. It feels like you should be able to hit gold from the large ramp/platform at third.
I wrote a whole bunch of 1st impression problems, then I went through them 1 by 1 and crossed them off as I went over this map. This map is awesome.
I'm loving the map, textures, layout, everything.
|
I don't feel like the natural-back-door-cliff is as dangerous as you imagine, but I'd like to get a lot more testing on it before making any decisions.
Those are Monlyth Crystals with Light Omni Purple.
|
The Ascetics are very nice but what concerns me is that there are not that many open areas for zerg to surround. The one that is nearest to the natural seems to far away to have creep there in an early push. The area in the main opposite the natural looks great for hiding overlords though. I like the center area, it seems kind of like caverns with an open area surrounded by choke points which makes for good fights to watch. A planetary at the gold is going to be even better then it is on caverns but on this map the space it controls is less important since it isn't on the main attack path
|
@Boom:
7/6/8/8
And I'm a tough grader 
|
Aesthetics and Bases
This map looks fantastic (in both the contemporary and classical sense of the word) and I love that. I like the expansion and attack pathing equally as much and it looks like it will promote aggressive play (which I like).
Natural Cliff
I don't really have an issue with the natural's cliff. While it is true that I'm just going to end up blocking the opposing entrance with a factory, I don't see an imbalancing disadvantage to the defender even without that. Given that an attacker wishing to take that path will have to take such a circuitous route to do so. You could draw parallels to the side attack path on Xel'Naga Caverns and rationalize that the high-ground advantage (which I think is rather small in this case) is paid for by the increased distance. That being said, I also wouldn't be opposed to seeing destructible rocks. I just don't think they are necessary.
Openness
I can't really comment on this (being a Terran and (slightly) Protoss focused player), except to say that I can see the issues with Zerg finding large areas to engage in. However, I think these are limited to those ancillary attack paths and hopefully won't be the site of large army battles. I think more play-testing is needed before changes should be made to those paths.
Will be playing this map over the next couple of days and comment accordingly. Good work. 
|
On December 15 2010 10:32 BoomStevo wrote:
I don't feel like the natural-back-door-cliff is as dangerous as you imagine, but I'd like to get a lot more testing on it before making any decisions.
Those are Monlyth Crystals with Light Omni Purple.
Ah, cool.
WAIT.
Just thought of this: make it Christmas colors. Alternating red and blue. That would be so awesome!
EDIT: Red and GREEN.
|
On December 15 2010 11:01 iGrok wrote:@Boom: 7/6/8/8 And I'm a tough grader
6? Explain yourself.
|
Blizzard wouldn't allow me to publish the map as "Leviathan" so I decided to publish it as "Stevo Leviathan". This prompted me to republish a few of my other maps similarly. So you can find it and other maps on NA by searching for "Stevo".
|
For some reason its really reminding me of XC - like it got stirred.
|
On December 15 2010 16:52 iGrok wrote:
For some reason its really reminding me of XC - like it got stirred.
That's probably because XC is great and since my map is so good, you associated that feeling with XC. Seriously though, I understand the comparison. It has a long back path to the natural and uses the same texture set. I tried to make the aesthetics different from XC and I think it plays quite differently than XC.
|
I like this map, but it reminds me a lot of Xel'naga Caverns, but with more cliffs. That actually might be why I like it a lot. I will try it out when I get a chance!
|
What's the order of categories on that rubric? 
That title picture is SO MONEY.
I still really dig this map. I'm interested to hear what changed that you added the unpathable clump in the center. I'm a little sad to see it go that way, even though it works really well. I felt like this map was a great opportunity to have a huge wide space that still had a lot of character. There are other options too for what sort of thing you use to break up the space if you insist, any would work, it's just a design call.
As it stands, the zerg midwest syndrome is adequately provided for. There are comparable spaces to Xel'Naga Caverns, which has nothing much wider than what's offered here.
I love the dynamic at 4 bases on this map. I think that's the sweet spot for aggression/long game dynamics. The layout is just awesome for this.
|
The cliffs at the nats scare me, but otherwise this looks like a fun map.
I don't think "Leviathan" is that great a name for a Shakuras-themed map though :/
|
On December 15 2010 17:40 EatThePath wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What's the order of categories on that rubric? That title picture is SO MONEY. I still really dig this map. I'm interested to hear what changed that you added the unpathable clump in the center. I'm a little sad to see it go that way, even though it works really well. I felt like this map was a great opportunity to have a huge wide space that still had a lot of character. There are other options too for what sort of thing you use to break up the space if you insist, any would work, it's just a design call. As it stands, the zerg midwest syndrome is adequately provided for. There are comparable spaces to Xel'Naga Caverns, which has nothing much wider than what's offered here. I love the dynamic at 4 bases on this map. I think that's the sweet spot for aggression/long game dynamics. The layout is just awesome for this.
Balance/Originality/Fun/Aesthetics.
I felt like there needed to be something between the two watch towers so controlling the entire center meant dividing your forces. I'm still on the fence about it. I'd like a big open space there too.
On December 15 2010 18:07 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The cliffs at the nats scare me, but otherwise this looks like a fun map.
I don't think "Leviathan" is that great a name for a Shakuras-themed map though :/
When I think of Leviathan, I imagine a sea monster. It's actually Ulaan which is generally a "cave" texture set, but I like the set and the colors reminded me of water. I also wanted it to be dark and stormy. It's hard to tell from the images but if you play it, you should notice there's rain, thunder and lighting.
|
I think the texture set fits really well, made me think of Atlantis a bit, just more somber
p.s. i replied xD
EDIT btw its 7/7/8/8 now, changed my mind.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Wow, this is easily your best map so fair. Really like the look. Can you upload it to EU somehow?
|
I stared at this map for a looooong time before snapping my fingers and realizing what my problem with it is. Before my criticism though, it's a really good map and I really like that, I dig the ledge at the natural.
My problem with it though is that there doesn't appear at first sight to be any wide open areas for a large flanking. As a zerg player I like to get massive surrounds and a lot of the corridors in this map look like they might just be funnels into tank fire.
Edit: After looking at it a little more I think I might have been overreacting, but it does still seem fairly focused on chokes with not much maneuverability.
|
On December 15 2010 19:47 dezi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Wow, this is easily your best map so fair. Really like the look. Can you upload it to EU somehow?
Thanks! I would be willing to let someone publish it on EU but I don't know anyone.
On December 15 2010 20:01 HollowLord wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I stared at this map for a looooong time before snapping my fingers and realizing what my problem with it is. Before my criticism though, it's a really good map and I really like that, I dig the ledge at the natural.
My problem with it though is that there doesn't appear at first sight to be any wide open areas for a large flanking. As a zerg player I like to get massive surrounds and a lot of the corridors in this map look like they might just be funnels into tank fire.
Edit: After looking at it a little more I think I might have been overreacting, but it does still seem fairly focused on chokes with not much maneuverability.
I believe the spaces may be wider than you imagine. It's difficult to get a feel for the space with the images. Originally the center was wide open and I'd like more testing to determine if space is an issue.
|
I really like how this map looks. How big is it? It looks a tad on the large side but I don't think it'd be a problem.
|
On December 16 2010 06:36 neobowman wrote:
I really like how this map looks. How big is it? It looks a tad on the large side but I don't think it'd be a problem.
132x132. Slightly larger than a standard Blizzard Map, but I feel like it's within reason.
|
Okay, after seeing the map in action, I can defiantly say that the main's ramp could afford to be pushed back into the high-ground and away from the natural more. The main's high-ground just seems to bare down on the natural and make it smaller than it should be. I'm not sure if you would want to move the entire main or make up the area by extending the high-ground out in another direction, though. Other than that, I like the map thus far. Still need to play-test it in longer games, though.
|
|
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On December 16 2010 06:31 BoomStevo wrote:Thanks! I would be willing to let someone publish it on EU but I don't know anyone.
Don't have any slots left and already have maps in the pipeline. Maybe a friend of mine (who maybo gonna upload my further maps) also can pusblish this one (if you can't find someone else).
|
On December 16 2010 06:31 BoomStevo wrote:
I believe the spaces may be wider than you imagine. It's difficult to get a feel for the space with the images. Originally the center was wide open and I'd like more testing to determine if space is an issue.
Yeah I think you might be right, after looking at it some more it seemed reasonable. It's a really cool map and I feel like I would definitely have to give it a shot it before just dismissing it.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 16 2010 08:21 41d3n wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Okay, after seeing the map in action, I can defiantly say that the main's ramp could afford to be pushed back into the high-ground and away from the natural more. The main's high-ground just seems to bare down on the natural and make it smaller than it should be. I'm not sure if you would want to move the entire main or make up the area by extending the high-ground out in another direction, though. Other than that, I like the map thus far. Still need to play-test it in longer games, though.
It is very tight. I can see how that could make maneuvering around the natural to defend the front and the back door more difficult. I'll see what I can do. If you could send me the replays, it would make my day.
On December 16 2010 08:57 Barrin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I have looked at this map for a long time multiple times, and I have now decided that it's fucking sweet. My only real problem is basically what HollowLord said. There is an extraordinarily small amount of yellow and red on that analyzer openness image. This is actually due to a large degree because of the bitty dot problem, so it's not as bad as it sounds. Usually what that means is there are lots of attack paths, which there is in this map. I would personally open up a few paths a little more and make the hole in the center of the map smaller. Sweet map dood
I believe that the yellow spots on the analyzer are actually quite wide. I may open up the center.
On December 16 2010 09:33 dezi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Don't have any slots left and already have maps in the pipeline. Maybe a friend of mine (who maybo gonna upload my further maps) also can pusblish this one (if you can't find someone else).
Send me an e-mail at boomstevo (at) gmail (dot) com if your friend wants to publish it, or if anyone reading this wants to publish on EU
I don't think that would be fair.
|
This map > jungle basin. I feel like i can take my third much much more easier
|
On December 16 2010 17:55 KezseN wrote:
This map > jungle basin. I feel like i can take my third much much more easier
The third is definitely easier than Jungle Basin.
|
Woah this map looks great. I'll check it out tonight, has anyone sent in replays yet?
|
Just sent you 5 replays. Check it out, the mineral positions can use some work. Sometimes the workers wrap around and it's kind of annoying. No big macro games were played and the one that could be a macro game dc'd halfway D:. I do like the map though. The cliffs near the natural is interesting and I found that an overlord patrolling there is needed.
|
On December 17 2010 09:05 G_Wen wrote:
Just sent you 5 replays. Check it out, the mineral positions can use some work. Sometimes the workers wrap around and it's kind of annoying. No big macro games were played and the one that could be a macro game dc'd halfway D:. I do like the map though. The cliffs near the natural is interesting and I found that an overlord patrolling there is needed.
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this. I just watched them. Too bad you didn't get any longer games, but I saw a few things that will help me and I'll look at changing the mineral lines.
|
On December 18 2010 03:30 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 09:05 G_Wen wrote:
Just sent you 5 replays. Check it out, the mineral positions can use some work. Sometimes the workers wrap around and it's kind of annoying. No big macro games were played and the one that could be a macro game dc'd halfway D:. I do like the map though. The cliffs near the natural is interesting and I found that an overlord patrolling there is needed. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this. I just watched them. Too bad you didn't get any longer games, but I saw a few things that will help me and I'll look at changing the mineral lines.
Yeah np, I really liked the map.
Well the last one could have went somewhere but d/c D:. I'm going to try some reactor hellion expands against Zergs next chance since the cliff above the natural has some abuse potential. Basically you have to put a queen there asap and have an overlord patrolling for potential cannon rushes ect.
|
On December 18 2010 05:06 G_Wen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 03:30 BoomStevo wrote:On December 17 2010 09:05 G_Wen wrote:
Just sent you 5 replays. Check it out, the mineral positions can use some work. Sometimes the workers wrap around and it's kind of annoying. No big macro games were played and the one that could be a macro game dc'd halfway D:. I do like the map though. The cliffs near the natural is interesting and I found that an overlord patrolling there is needed. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this. I just watched them. Too bad you didn't get any longer games, but I saw a few things that will help me and I'll look at changing the mineral lines. Yeah np, I really liked the map. Well the last one could have went somewhere but d/c D:. I'm going to try some reactor hellion expands against Zergs next chance since the cliff above the natural has some abuse potential. Basically you have to put a queen there asap and have an overlord patrolling for potential cannon rushes ect.
sorry about that. i really was going for a macro game on that last try  next time ill just do whatever build you want tested. i can be on all today if someone wants.
|
Updated the OP with Version 1.1
Changes:
- Opened the center up.
- Increased the size of the natural which decreased the size of the main.
- Reconfigured the minerals in the main.
Tell me what you think. Improvement?
|
Oh awesome stuff Stevo, it looks even better now.
|
the new natural looks a lot better but i really think you shoulda kept that middle area the way it was, looks too open and decreases the importance of the xel naga towers.
|
I'm with wnio on this one, i like the old middle better. if you don't want to open it up too much you can use los blockers. I've always thought of them as "soft walls".
Don't know what i feel about the nat changes, didn't get to test too much on the old one. i'll prob have time on monday when i get my computer.
Mins in the mid looks good will comment after more games.
|
I like the current version a lot better, but like some people were saying the high ground near the natural is very exploitable, especially in it's current iteration. I've tested this a lot on my map Starchild and it's pretty important to put something to deter that sort of play (ie a destructible rock). You can make this rock low hp/armor but it the way it is just doesn't quite work in my experience. Also, how wide is the smallest point up there? It looks like you might be able to wall it in with a single bunker, and if you can do that then simply dropping a tank, scv and some marines up there would be brutal. Is this possible?
EDIT: No complaints on the rest of the map and the above is purely speculation so disregard if you've tested the hell out of it
|
Dude I love it, I think its really awesome, but I think you should have two paths leading to the ledge above the natural, one really short/direct path protected by a set of destructible rocks, or even two, and then one long one w/o destructible rocks. Now, as everyone else has pointed out, this map seems a bit Zerg UP, so maybe add spots of neutral creep (idk if you can do this, i have yet to look @ the map editor. Basically to give zerg units a speed boost, but only along the long corridors, as people said so to avoid as much tank fire, and also to help balance out the non flanking aspect.
|
On December 18 2010 10:35 G_Wen wrote:
I'm with wnio on this one, i like the old middle better. if you don't want to open it up too much you can use los blockers. I've always thought of them as "soft walls".
Don't know what i feel about the nat changes, didn't get to test too much on the old one. i'll prob have time on monday when i get my computer.
Mins in the mid looks good will comment after more games.
I like the idea of using LOS blockers to break up the open center. I'm going to try that.
On December 18 2010 10:52 prodiG wrote:
I like the current version a lot better, but like some people were saying the high ground near the natural is very exploitable, especially in it's current iteration. I've tested this a lot on my map Starchild and it's pretty important to put something to deter that sort of play (ie a destructible rock). You can make this rock low hp/armor but it the way it is just doesn't quite work in my experience. Also, how wide is the smallest point up there? It looks like you might be able to wall it in with a single bunker, and if you can do that then simply dropping a tank, scv and some marines up there would be brutal. Is this possible?
EDIT: No complaints on the rest of the map and the above is purely speculation so disregard if you've tested the hell out of it
I'd like to test the natural cliff more than it has been. The jury is still out. A bunker doesn't wall it off where it is smallest, but there isn't much more room. I could make the smaller section unbuildable if it proves to be a problem.
|
Im curious to know, Did you took the Succes of Xel naga Caverns into your mind and basicly recreated it but sightly modified? It reminds me alot of it.
Other than that i really think the ledge of the natural will be really problematic. But i have no suggestions to improve it.
|
The map looks absolutely amazing, i love how it feels good while playing on it. Of course people are going to comment on balance but just get enough data before you change anything
|
I can publish it on EU for you. I'll send you an email.
Edit: Published on EU as Leviathan 1.2. Ugh transmitting archive file failed about 5 times, why can't Bnet 0.2 just work...
|
Updated OP with images of version 1.2. Added some LOS Blockers to the center.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 10:52 prodiG wrote:
I like the current version a lot better, but like some people were saying the high ground near the natural is very exploitable, especially in it's current iteration. I've tested this a lot on my map Starchild and it's pretty important to put something to deter that sort of play (ie a destructible rock). You can make this rock low hp/armor but it the way it is just doesn't quite work in my experience. Also, how wide is the smallest point up there? It looks like you might be able to wall it in with a single bunker, and if you can do that then simply dropping a tank, scv and some marines up there would be brutal. Is this possible?
EDIT: No complaints on the rest of the map and the above is purely speculation so disregard if you've tested the hell out of it
" ...low hp/armor but it the way it is just doesn't quite work"
The use of low hp dr is wicked... (3 or 4 low hp and 1 or 2 regular for a block off (requiring extra player apm / strategy) instead of just 1 unit to have to work on is the way of the Gosu mapmaker..! + Show Spoiler +
|
This map and Continuum are the best user-made maps I've seen (including iCCup).
The only change I would make is adding rocks to the ramp that leads to the corridors on each side of the map.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Played the map and it really feels very good. Wouldn't change anything right now. This map (and many others recently released maps) proof that not only the iCCup map makers know their job
If you feel the cliff above the nat is to exploitable just make some parts of it unpathable and lower the surface area (and fill it with doodads like you nicely did on the rest of the map) (are those LoSB brushes beneath the stones Oo).
|
Those rich minerals are super choked, it's interesting but I worry that it will be too attractive for Terran/Toss to expand there and then Zerg can't really poke in,
Then again that goes for Zerg expanding into a safe cozy Rich early on.
|
This map remains my favorite user-made map I've ever seen.
|
How long is the walk distance between the bases in comparison to maps like shakuras and stepes of war
|
On December 29 2010 07:17 Whiplash wrote:
How long is the walk distance between the bases in comparison to maps like shakuras and stepes of war
The distance from main to main is similar to Shakuras Plateau cross positions (about 35 seconds).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xQtdF.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/7Bitc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/4yFXs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Kfgaf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sjLQR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/JR8dk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/N2x8u.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zo9Zr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/VzwpI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KtCMr.jpg)
