|
So, crazy idea, if you changed arid wastes to a two player map with top right and btm left spawns, it would actually be a reasonably good (compared to the trash in the ladder pool atm) 1v1 map? Thoughts?
Pic added for emphasis.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8c2AD.jpg)
extended thoughts: Long rush distance map (pretty much what almost everyone wants more of in the map pool, this map looks to really promote macro play), backdoor to nat is really close to front door anyway, so the problems that arise on blistering wouldn't be as big of an issue considering the defender has a much easier time bouncing between the two chokes than the attacker does (especially coupled with the fact that nat-front is pretty damn small anyway)
Pretty well designed mid, with open areas but not stupidly open as the watchtowers provied smaller chokey areas.
Fairly interesting decision on what third to take either the no-longer-a-main's natural anti-clockwise of your spawn, knocking down your nat's back rocks and taking the third clockwise of yourself, blocking off the main-nat entrance (somewhat like we saw a lot of protoss doing on blistering PvZ earlier in the meta-game, block the main entrance and use the backdoor as your new entrance), one of the golds if you have map control, or the map is big enough to gamble on a 'hidden' expansion.
Interesting dynamic late game where the map isnt easily 'split' with the paths opened at the destructible rocks at the 'no-longer-a-main' bases. Would also promote a lot of fighting over the golds at mid and really promote a mobile army.
The more i look at this, the more i wish it was in the map pool, i kinda wish i could make my own topic on it I like the idea of this being a 1v1 map so much.
Anyone have any thoughts?
new poll seeming the other one im quite sure is insanely biased as the 'no-longer-a-main' spawns have incredibly disadvantages against the other spawns
Poll: Include Arid Wastes 2-player mode?Yes (114) 86% No (19) 14% 133 total votes Your vote: Include Arid Wastes 2-player mode? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
edit:
Alright for everone that voted 'yes' to the poll and has any interest in the map being added over one of the current maps in the pool, show your support by posting here ( http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1567927301#1 ) and not letting the thread get buried! Hopefully someone at blizz reads and takes us seriously 
|
I have to agree with you on this one. It is actually a somewhat difficult 2v2 map because of the long distances between you and your ally and a large open area where you would want to rally with your ally. I do like the idea of the 1v1 settings though. Good catch on that!
|
Maybe if they take out the 2 unused mains, it may work... With those mains there, a person securing the natural will be able to take the main as a 4th relatively easily I think.
If you take out those mains and flatten the road (maybe leaving a pair of destructible rocks between the corner and the 3rd base sort of like between mains in Shakuras). Maybe even moving the gold to the area between those 2 rocks. The way the gold is now, 1v1 if you are able to take one safely, chances are you've won the game.
Bah, what the hell do I know? I'm just spewing stuff that sounds good to me 
|
I love playing this map on 2v2! Only when I don't have the stupid rocks, lol
|
On December 15 2010 15:20 o3.power91 wrote:
Maybe if they take out the 2 unused mains, it may work... With those mains there, a person securing the natural will be able to take the main as a 4th relatively easily I think.
HHmmmm yes and no i think, the backdoor at the 4th i'd assume would make it much harder to take than the map looks at first glance, but you definitely have a point!
Either way i feel like you could make the same argument for shakurus, (the backdoor is even harder to get through there as there's 2 rocks you need to break, way away from where you likely want your army to be), so i dont think it's a map-breaking problem.
|
I would hate to see this in the ladder pool. I actually kinda like playing it 1v1, but i want new maps from blizzard, i dont want to have to relearn how to play that map if ive been doing it 2v2 for a hundred times. and if it were 1v1 the map has way to much unnused space.
|
I would hate it as a Zerg.
Let's imagine a Zerg would spawn at 6 (Bottom), Terran at 8 (Bottom left) -> Free nukes/Tanks bombing in Zerg's natural, directly from Terrain's main !
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 16 2010 01:36 Ahelvin wrote:
I would hate it as a Zerg.
Let's imagine a Zerg would spawn at 6 (Bottom), Terran at 8 (Bottom left) -> Free nukes/Tanks bombing in Zerg's natural, directly from Terrain's main !
He specifically said to limit the spawns to 2 and 8.
Wow, I never thought of this, but it actually would work really well like that. I do think the golds would be near impossible to hold unless you've basically won anyway.
|
Agreed. Looking at it as a 1v1 map makes it looks spectacular at a glance. Will try it out later with a friend and see how it pans out. Looks like it could shake out to be metalopolis-esque, with each player looking at 5 expansions + gold on their own side, or mixing it up with expanding to natural, then expanding vertically from there, instead of winding all the way around to the 3rd.
Even if you roll dice to make it switch between 1 of the 2 spawns for each player, then you get some variation/need for scouting while still having a pretty big map. Only thing that makes me dislike that idea would be one player getting rocks and the other not, so maybe even make it force either 1 set of positions, or the other, never one player with rocks, one without.
Just some things to be noted, cliffs help Terran and Protoss defend their 2nd/3rd with tanks and colossi/blink. Open spawns/expansions promotes drops/nydus from all races. Small amount of room behind spawns/expansions promote mutalisk harrass. Overall doesn't seem too favored to any one race, besides the tanks/colossi on cliffs being a major help for 2nd/3rd base defense.
|
On December 16 2010 01:36 Ahelvin wrote:
I would hate it as a Zerg.
Let's imagine a Zerg would spawn at 6 (Bottom), Terran at 8 (Bottom left) -> Free nukes/Tanks bombing in Zerg's natural, directly from Terrain's main !
you didn't even read the first god damn line of the thread before jumping in with your opinion? Are you joking???? Jesus christ that pisses me off.
|
I like the idea of putting this in over either Blistering Sands or DQ. And it's a far better shot for Blizz to put this in than it is for a custom map to make it...make a thread about this on the B-net forums, maybe, and see if there's a response? It might just be wishful thinking, but the negative reaction to bad GSL maps makes me think that a half-decent Blizz map like this one could make the pool.
|
United States10149 Posts
that actually works out nicely. unlike the other 2v2 maps where you share the base, shared nats etc., arid wastes is like the classis 2v2 on python maps in SCBW.
|
take out the more central players naturals and im all for it, (or add a ramp there or something)
|
Good idea. I'm always up for some good macro maps.
|
Now that I look at it, it really does look like a very good 1v1 map! (at least compared to the current ladder maps xD)
It is indeed quite large and has quite a lot of bases, while not being actually "big" like Shakuras. I like how there are several "paths' you can take to your opponent or away from him, attacking paths and expansion paths.
Hmm, perhaps someone should make a quick mod of it as a 1v1 and only allow the top right and bottom left to be spawns? Even compared to ICCUP maps this would be interesting to play on.
Also I agree, the middle is not too open due to the towers, and the towers don't provide extreme map control either.
|
On December 15 2010 15:20 o3.power91 wrote:Maybe if they take out the 2 unused mains, it may work... With those mains there, a person securing the natural will be able to take the main as a 4th relatively easily I think. If you take out those mains and flatten the road (maybe leaving a pair of destructible rocks between the corner and the 3rd base sort of like between mains in Shakuras). Maybe even moving the gold to the area between those 2 rocks. The way the gold is now, 1v1 if you are able to take one safely, chances are you've won the game. Bah, what the hell do I know? I'm just spewing stuff that sounds good to me
I sort of like this idea, but I think it would be better implemented if you tilted the map and made the main's close and the naturals are facing in such a way so that you were expanding away from your opponent if you spawn close positions, like in LT or Python:
+ Show Spoiler +
More changes would need to be made from here, but it's definitely a good idea.
|
I liked the idea. It never occured to think of it as pure 2 player map, i always thought the shakuras way and that wouldnt have worked, but yeah, its seeems worth a try.
|
This actually makes a lot of goddamn sense. There's no silly back door into the main, taking a 3rd and 4th base is incredibly viable yet they come with a risk (rocks outside the 4th), nice big and open map. I really dig it. Somewhat reminds me of Broodwar maps with such an open center.
|
Hm if no one's gonna do it, I'll make a 1v1 version of this ASAP tomorrow :D I'm on NA server so I'll upload it as like "Arid Wastes 1v1" or something like that.
Seems like we got a patch today but no chat channels? but i'm sure we'll get them soon. And it'll be much easier to play more "rare" but "better" maps like this. Hey may be we'll even see this as a top popular 1v1 custom melee map xD
Edit: Wow thinking more into this, the economic potential on this map is really huge... I was thinking about removing the no-longer-a-main plateau, or at least removing the resources there (or keep the main but not the no-longer-a-main's natural), or possibly removing the high yields from the center and replacing the no-longer-a-main with them, but I think it would be better/safer a move just to reduce the resources there, may be make the natural (your possible third) mineral only, and the main (your possible 4th) have 2 gas 6 minerals or something, which would encourage the players closer to each other (the bottom left player could expand through the rocks upwards, and then to the right, instead of both players going right/left which would lead into constant huge battles in the middle due to many ramps)?
But anyways yea i'll most likely be able to get just a straight-port to a 1v1 out in NA server tomorrow
|
For a 1v1 version, I'd change the following:
-Add DRs to the high yield expansions
-Remove the DRs at the backdoors of the 6 and 12 expansions, and maybe increase the size of both of the ramps that lead to those bases
At first I thought this was a terrible idea, then I thought about it a little bit more, and this is actually a great idea because it almost is ready for 1v1 gameplay. I hope to see this up by tomorrow!
|
Ahh, good suggestion for the rocks. Duh that would be necessary :D And if not, it can't hurt much.
However for removing the backdoor rocks... it would make it harder to defend if you expand left and right because there's no rocks there, but then it would discourage the ability of being able to expand up and down because those rocks won't be there to protect the third (top left and bottom right). (If you look carefully there's 2 routes to which you can push/expand). If both sides expand left and right, it would just be a big split, and I don't think that would be such a good thing. I think there needs to be a little something so that expanding left and right so obvious. Perhaps remove a mineral/gas or two like I suggested earlier from the top and bottom old naturals and top and bottom old mains?
Also which ramps are you talking about, the ramps that lead down to old naturals, or the ramp with the backdoor rocks on them?
Actually I think I just solved the problem. Instead of removing some resources, if I make the 12 and 6 main's middle leveled like their naturals instead of high, and widen the backdoor entrance (and remove the rocks there), then all should be good :D (expanding top and down wouldn't be so disadvantage as the moving to the 4th AKA 12 main and 6 main wouldn't be an uphill battle, while expanding left and right will be harder to defend!)
1 last thing. Should the brush be removed from the 12 and 6 main at the backdoor? or moved, like a straight line exactly in the middle of the chokepoint (previously a ramp)? I'm not quite sure if the brush will benefit the attacker more or not (i don't think it will).
|
On December 17 2010 10:18 Antares777 wrote:For a 1v1 version, I'd change the following: -Add DRs to the high yield expansions -Remove the DRs at the backdoors of the 6 and 12 expansions, and maybe increase the size of both of the ramps that lead to those bases At first I thought this was a terrible idea, then I thought about it a little bit more, and this is actually a great idea because it almost is ready for 1v1 gameplay. I hope to see this up by tomorrow!
yeah i was going through another thread looking at all the maps and it was basically a 'what would the maps be like as 1v1 maps?' thread, this map by default is obviously pretty horrible, some maps having DR's and others not, but then i realized that if you take away those spawns it looks as if it was almost designed for 1v1 play in the first place.
I like the idea of getting rid of the DR's at the backdoors to 6 and 12 and adding them to the gold too, makes taking that 'easy' fourth that little bit harder since there are more chokes to defend, and makes things like small crackling/dt/MM attacks much more viable against that otherwise 'too easy to defend' fourth.
|
Hm what do you think about the brush at the old backdoors ?
and yea removing those DRs will, like I said earlier, increase the decision making for this map, as it is "easy" to expand horizontally but by doing so, you will be closer to your opponent, while expanding vertically will also eventually lead to your opponent but not as soon.
Or of course you could expand both ways, like at the bottom left spawn you can take your third horizontally at the old natural, and then take a secret/aggressive expo at the top left...
Ahh, good suggestion for the rocks. Duh that would be necessary :D And if not, it can't hurt much.
To clarify for others reading this thread, I meant, "that would be necessary, but even if they're not necessary, it can't hurt much" *** xD
|
I personally hate this map in 2v2 as you more or less need to do tier 1 rushes else you'll lose to them.. but 1v1 it looks brilliant!
I'd like to see Blistering Sands swapped out for it immediately.
|
Personally I'd rather see a small overhaul rather than this exact map be used. My first custom map was sort of inspired by this map, but it's not very good (what can you expect, it was my first try?)
+ Show Spoiler [(2) Impervious] +
I think a well-done Arid Wastes inspired map could be quite exciting (A bit smaller, no 2v2 bases aka no super ez third and 4th)
|
Seriously, I think it looks like a fucking brilliant 1v1 map. It looks like it should play out much better than any of the current 1v1 ladder maps, yet it's not too big (compared to many of the non ladder maps, like most of the ICCUP maps, which I feel are just too big).
|
Reminds me a little bit of Xel' Naga Caverns, but different of course.
|
I think the map pool need some big ass maps (like garden of the gods).
At first glance, this reminded me greatly of Blistering Sands (except not shit), because of the center of the map which is very similar, and the relatively close 3rd and 4th. and even a 5th for awesome games (not achievable on blistering sands).
I really like the backdoor in the natural. Lowers the power of tanks and turtling players. My only worry is that terrans with good tank placement could secure 4 bases with ease (and than placing a planetary fortress at the natural and 4th to protect from the back rocks while while the army runs to defend).
Idk, awesome idea. kinda skeptical at first, accidentally voted no, forgot the steppes of war was still in the map pool. x.x
|
lol
ill try to get something out tomorrow may be you guys can give feedback and we can make it as beastly as possible
so here are the changes i'm thinking of (and I've thought this over for like an hour already xD)
Rocks at High Yields
Rocks at the horizontal thirds (the old naturals)
The elevation at the old mains and old naturals will now be lowered one
Old mains' backdoor rocks will be removed
Old brush at the old mains... ??? Will probably leave them there for now
Elevation at the golds might be lowered one or the old main's plateaus will be slightly smaller so that you can't blink from gold to main or main to gold (probably the latter)
And possible some ramps widened/narrowed or change direction slightly
Changes are to make three potential thirds, with more "equal priority"
-Vertical expansions (for bottom left player, the top left base)
-Old naturals (which will be lowered to make defending harder)
-Old Mains (which have an advantage over the old naturals because the old naturals will have rocks on them)
Removal of old backdoor rocks to make horizontal expanding harder to defend
-Makes vertical expanding more viable as an aggressive expanding direction
Sound ok for now? (the more I think about this the more I want to play haha)
|
I vote for leaving it unchanged (except make the spawns in the corners), and seeing how that plays out first.
|
On December 17 2010 14:23 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
lol
ill try to get something out tomorrow may be you guys can give feedback and we can make it as beastly as possible
so here are the changes i'm thinking of (and I've thought this over for like an hour already xD)
Rocks at High Yields
Rocks at the horizontal thirds (the old naturals)
The elevation at the old mains and old naturals will now be lowered one
Old mains' backdoor rocks will be removed
Old brush at the old mains... ??? Will probably leave them there for now
Elevation at the golds might be lowered one or the old main's plateaus will be slightly smaller so that you can't blink from gold to main or main to gold (probably the latter)
And possible some ramps widened/narrowed or change direction slightly
Changes are to make three potential thirds, with more "equal priority"
-Vertical expansions (for bottom left player, the top left base)
-Old naturals (which will be lowered to make defending harder)
-Old Mains (which have an advantage over the old naturals because the old naturals will have rocks on them)
Removal of old backdoor rocks to make horizontal expanding harder to defend
-Makes vertical expanding more viable as an aggressive expanding direction
Sound ok for now? (the more I think about this the more I want to play haha)
Whilst i love the idea of changes, something tells me blizzard is kind of lazy when it comes to maps, i mean, their solution to getting rid of DO and kulas was to put in two maps there were alrdy in the map pool, one of which was clearly originally designed as a 2v2 map.
I think if there's ANY chance of this making the blizzard 1v1 ladder, it will be the default version as we see now, only removing spawn spots like they did on shakuras.
|
Alright for everone that voted 'yes' to the poll and has any interest in the map being added over one of the current maps in the pool, show your support by posting here ( http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1567927301#1 ) and not letting the thread get buried! Hopefully someone at blizz reads and takes us seriously
|
On December 17 2010 10:18 Antares777 wrote:
For a 1v1 version, I'd change the following:
-Add DRs to the high yield expansions
-Remove the DRs at the backdoors of the 6 and 12 expansions, and maybe increase the size of both of the ramps that lead to those bases
What you want to add Rocks to High yield expansions? They already look insanely hard to hold even for Terran.
I mean say someone did successfully lock down a High yield, to the point where its not worth attacking. Its not in a position where it protects your main and natural. So it really exposes you to counter attacks.
|
uuuh nice thoughts! i approve. would be nice to have this one.
|
@Cyanocyst
Yeah I agree after rethinking, adding rocks to the gold might feel limited as a player would have to expand vertically or horizontally, while some may want to push out through the center and take one of the golds as they push
[quote][quote]Whilst i love the idea of changes, something tells me blizzard is kind of lazy when it comes to maps, i mean, their solution to getting rid of DO and kulas was to put in two maps there were alrdy in the map pool, one of which was clearly originally designed as a 2v2 map.
I think if there's ANY chance of this making the blizzard 1v1 ladder, it will be the default version as we see now, only removing spawn spots like they did on sh[/quote]akuras.[/quote
Hmm I guess so. I think I'll release two versions then, one simply with the spawn spots fixed named Arid Wastes 1v1, and a re-textured map with a few simple changes named Ragnarok Connection (for now).
They should both be up in an hour! ( unless there are problems  ).
This way Blizzard will see the Arid Wastes 1v1 and consider it as a 1v1 map and possibly make their own balance changes or leave it as fit, with a higher chance of considering it as it's still the same.
And this way my friends or others can play on a reskinned map (honestly I don't like that skin too much) with the changes I supposed earlier and probably have a better experience til Arid Wastes becomes an official 1v1 map with possible changes.
|
This actually looks really cool! And, to disagree with an earlier post - NO destructible rocks at the golds. Expanding is good.
You would definitely have to make sure it would be bot left versus top right - if it was set up like Shakuras with the other two mains being possible, there would be some serious positional imbalances. I know this was mentioned in the OP but its really important to remember.
|
Ok so I've finally uploaded both versions.
When I was doing the changed version, I realized that I couldn't make the horizontal third (old naturals) lower than the center's elevation, as it was already as low as possible so i just kept it equal...
eh it turned out being quite a hassle simply changing elevations
Ok so Arid Wastes 1v1 is now named Barren Wasteland
Sorry for the name change, I was encountering problems and this was the only name I could get. Some reason I couldn't upload it as Arid Wastes 1v1, nor anything similar. Then I got Barren Wasteland to work, but then I tried to upload a newer version and it didn't let me
(the published name "????" is not available <???? zhCN>"
I realized then that zhCN meant I must have some Chinese program on or something disrupting the font... which is quite weird, since I'm quite sure there is no chinese writing software installed (and the window's software thing is off). Otherwise, I can't think of what the zhCN means.
|
I think a little bit of adjustment would help the map, but it would look amazing as 1v1 still.
+ Show Spoiler +light blue - ramp red - remove ramp and rocks ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/jtIkQ.jpg)
|
I have to say it is a good map, but it looks like it might be a little zerg favored at the moment, since you basically have 4 rather easy bases, and it looks rather open as well, for flanking.
|
On December 19 2010 11:12 Blisse wrote:I think a little bit of adjustment would help the map, but it would look amazing as 1v1 still. + Show Spoiler +light blue - ramp red - remove ramp and rocks
The backdoors to the naturals with the DRs are fine to have in game in my opinion.
|
Blisse
A lot of the changes I added to it were pretty much what you said. Except the natural rocks were kept and I didn't add the extra (second) ramp to the old mains (i did change the direction of the old main ramps at their fronts to horizontal though, like you did, and made them bigger)
btw once i figure it out I'll rename the Barren Wasteland map to Arid Wastes 1v1 xD
Again for my changes you can use Ragnarok Connection and hopefully we can improve it and come up with something good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img52.imageshack.us/i/381losttemplesc2.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img547.imageshack.us/i/147python.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://www.prodigsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Impervious.jpg)
