|
(4)Decline
!!! online on NA an EU. Search for Decline or MotM !!!
*** Top 5 of the MotM #1 ***
Detail
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/QCCMM.jpg)
Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Idea:
A 4-spawn melee map with a general layout similar to LT on 144x144 without islands based on my map (4)Fate. I reworked my basic concept from scratch to make the map more compact. Expansion setup is Main+Nat at each four spawnpoints and two High Yield and Triple Vespene as alternative thirds. The High Yield should be central when expanding towards the map's centre. One more 1-gas expansion is in rather far walking distance, but save in between mid distance mains (at 1 and 7).
Update March 1st 2011
Back up on EU with small updates
- one instead of two holes in middle of map
- chokes into natural are less long
- more space at the crossing of pathes from nat and third to large ramp down into centre
I expect Decline to go back online on US today or tomorrow!
Note:
I wanted to make a map that had solid and balanced gameplay with some small things that produce interesting situations like the HY area, the centre, the drop-cliffs with ramps and so on, so I based it on an old layout idea already used in (4)Fate and refine it. Also I wanted to make something more colorfull than I did in my last maps.
Main problem was that I had so little time and I basically made this map in four evenings that tended to develop into nights the last two days before the end of the MotM competition.
Rush distances:
Close rush distances are longer than Metalopolis, while far rush distances are closer. This helps to create a well balanced setup that still has some differences between the three setups. Rush distances are rather evenly distributed with 117/137/155 (Main to Main) and 93/120/137 (Nat to Nat)
Features:
Wide open ramps can be found at both central HY areas and towards Nat-choke and triple vespene. Besides the more compact design, this is the main change or new feature considering (4)Fate as its prequel.
The position of the High Yield is interesting, because it is quite central situated like in Xel'Naga Caverns and has two open ramps and a deep back with a 1-gas expansion that could be used for drops. The cliffs at High Yield can be used devensivly against XN-watchtower or for drops. Also the Main can be cliff-walk attacked from High Yield area, so these two areas are together with the centre really important.
A word on the central path between the two XN: while the area is open, there are two holes separating the field into smaller areas: I think this rather hurts Terran than Zerg who can still come up with surrounds, while Terrans will be less powerfull controlling the open field with big clusters of slow tanks.
LoSB at entrances into triple-vespene expansions and at SE and NW end of the central area produce interesting options for movement.
DRs on third vespene at also blocks ramps that help counter drops. In general there are different drop-options at all shared expansions with no-fly zones around towers in map's corners at both triple vespene and 1-gas expansions.
Visual Design:
Since a had really little time for the visuals they may look a bit rushed in a few spaces, but still I think it looks rather well. Everywehere you can find something, alien flowers, fresh plants and so on. While I wanted to keep it basic and use really few different doodads, I wanted to create a look that is different at each main, so certain textures (two stone tiles) alternate between two mains, their nats and the High Yield area while the 1-gas and the triple vespene exoansions have a more netaural grassy look. There also is a gradient from top to bottom starting with green, fresh and helthy tress and changing to brown and red and finally some shakuras plants at bottom. This is where the maps title originates: forest decline. This is interesting and something that I would like to do again with some more time.
The textureset is a mixture of Aiur, Agria and Haven and Agria lighting setup.
Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9bPpV.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Llbof.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5ZZx0.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GAvDt.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/a9xRn.jpg) (Screenshots missing fog)
Update:
players asked for a bit more openness and I also recognized I should try to make close-spawn rush distance a bit longer.
1. wider central field between the two XNWT
2. wider ramps up to high yield plateau
3. longer rush-distance due to longer choke into triple-vespene expansion (117 > 120)
4. slightly bigger main; added space at outer edge
online on EU and NA!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
about time someone made distinct differences in texturing for different areas of the map while still keeping it subtle. fucking sick man, the rush distance seems good as well.
|
better than 90% of the custom melees, including most of the iccup maps. maybe i just like huge maps, but it should be a great map. now if only we had a way to get maps like this played..
|
This map is really pretty  I love your custom title set!
I like how you set up the naturals and thirds to be on the same ground and then extend down into the middle, along with your great LoSB and XWT placement. My favorite idea on this map is how the high yield base extends down into a one gas base. That layout is really something new and very interesting. I look forward to seeing more of your maps, especially if they feature awesome textures and layout.
One are that I think could be improved upon would be the outisdes of the map. One side has just water, and the other said is rather plain, with some doodads. I think that that area could be made to look much more beautiful if the texture was changed from just one solid texture and maybe had some higher ground areas (unpathable) for aesthetics. The water could have higher ground areas just as well made to look like islands (again, unpathable, just for looks).
I really like this map, it's a great improvement of Fate, even though that map was great as well. This, and Tendency are my favorite maps made by you!
|
On January 09 2011 03:14 WniO wrote:
about time someone made distinct differences in texturing for different areas of the map while still keeping it subtle. fucking sick man, the rush distance seems good as well.
keeping the rushing distances different yet similar enough to be reasonable seemed really important to me. thanks for you nice comment on texturing!
On January 09 2011 03:43 danson wrote:
better than 90% of the custom melees, including most of the iccup maps. maybe i just like huge maps, but it should be a great map. now if only we had a way to get maps like this played..
 thx for your rating - I hope this map also gets some love in the MotM competition sothat more people can see and play this map.
On the size: the map feels big, but not really huge at 144. lots of space to scout, move and position yourself, though.
On January 09 2011 05:57 Antares777 wrote:This map is really pretty I love your custom title set! I like how you set up the naturals and thirds to be on the same ground and then extend down into the middle, along with your great LoSB and XWT placement. My favorite idea on this map is how the high yield base extends down into a one gas base. That layout is really something new and very interesting. I look forward to seeing more of your maps, especially if they feature awesome textures and layout. One are that I think could be improved upon would be the outisdes of the map. One side has just water, and the other said is rather plain, with some doodads. I think that that area could be made to look much more beautiful if the texture was changed from just one solid texture and maybe had some higher ground areas (unpathable) for aesthetics. The water could have higher ground areas just as well made to look like islands (again, unpathable, just for looks). I really like this map, it's a great improvement of Fate, even though that map was great as well. This, and Tendency are my favorite maps made by you!
I am really happy you like the visual style of the map, because there was so little time for me to actually work on visuals. I just picked three grass textures for the lighter side of the map, one light and one dark stone tile texture as general textures for the mains and the HY areas (where the HY is textures in the dark texture, the mains are in the light one) and a grey dirt texture and the Aiur 'holes' texture for the 'corrupted' areas. for all the transitions between tiles and grass or dirt I used the stone and grass texture from the Haven texture set.
One the plainness of the outside: I know it is boring, but it looks a bit better ingame (fog!). I just had know time at all in the end to do additional texturing and terrain. actually i had made a really huge forest all around the map boundaries changing from green to brown and red to dead wood, but it was really, really slow on my PC and I got afraid of low fps...
next Time I will take more time for stuff like that. there were some ideas, but it was just too late (like 2 hours before deadline and I was super tired because it was 3am and i did not sleep more than 5 hours for the last 3 days).
I am also really happy with the scaling, layout and expansion setup and with LoSB and XNWT.
For the layout I was like: take LT, find a better position for the HY and get rid of the islands, make better rush distance balance and produce interesting expansion options. I think it is not extremly original, but starting from a conservative layout and placing the HY areas two areas that are central for map control produced something really new.
Glad you seem to like i, too!
Let's cross our fingers that this map gets some love in the MotM-1 
|
Congratulations on making it to the top five in MotM!
I knew that this map would score well, but I wasn't sure that it would win, but now I know!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Congrats Samro 
|
So I just played Decline and I really like the way it looks and feels, however the starting position for my CC was really far away from the minerals. I think it was three hex off.
Also I started with a siege tank outside my natural for some reason.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Looks like it will be a ZvP nightmare since there's no real room for being able to flank. I'll have to play the map a few times to be sure since I can't quite make out the center. Fortunately, the way the map is constructed means that if you do need extra space, it can be created.
|
On January 10 2011 16:16 Vehemus wrote:
So I just played Decline and I really like the way it looks and feels, however the starting position for my CC was really far away from the minerals. I think it was three hex off.
Also I started with a siege tank outside my natural for some reason.
there should not be any tanks really and the spawnpoint placement looks good to me:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/n5UzL.jpg)
could you please specify where this problem occured?
the judges (or specifically iGrok) made some tests with siegetanks - probably one was overlooked before it was uploaded? as far as I know my last version didn't include any extra siegtanks - but anything seems to be possible. i was so tired...
On January 10 2011 16:21 Plexa wrote:
Looks like it will be a ZvP nightmare since there's no real room for being able to flank. I'll have to play the map a few times to be sure since I can't quite make out the center. Fortunately, the way the map is constructed means that if you do need extra space, it can be created.
I appreciate the comment on ZvP, because I am in no way an expert on PvZ. If something really this does not work, things can really be changed quickly here (especially the two holes).
Let me show you a picture of what I understand as the map's centre:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/uVsA2.jpg)
I think the HY area qualifies as part of the maps centre and can as well as the LoSBs at both ends of the centre behind the holes (NW and SE) be used to outmaneuver the opponent. it is true that there is super open field anywhere. my idea of a not-too-open centre was to combine a big/macro-map with a centre that needs more attention with micro once you have bigger armies. you kind of have to flank and be mobile when you want to use your forces effectivly I think.
But I am eager to see how things work out in a real tourney/game situation.
I hope the picture helps to analyze. I will add an analyzer picture soo, too.
|
United States10124 Posts
The new and improved LT. the center is not quite large enough for my liking for the zerg surround. im guessing the center isnt buildable or the terran could camp the center...
|
On January 11 2011 00:22 FlaShFTW wrote:
The new and improved LT. the center is not quite large enough for my liking for the zerg surround. im guessing the center isnt buildable or the terran could camp the center...
Terran could camp the center with PFs if they wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised if LT is less open than this map, but the only way to find out is analyzer pics.
|
Hey guys, yeah we accidentally uploaded the testing version to BNet. I'm fixing that right now :p
|
I... really like this map! it's awesome.
can't wait to try it out :D
|
On January 11 2011 00:51 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 00:22 FlaShFTW wrote:
The new and improved LT. the center is not quite large enough for my liking for the zerg surround. im guessing the center isnt buildable or the terran could camp the center... Terran could camp the center with PFs if they wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised if LT is less open than this map, but the only way to find out is analyzer pics.
Actually LT has bigger 'open areas', but both maps work differently I guess. Decline has bigger spaces to left and right of centre (HY areas) and has a bigger number of potential pathes.
Images of both maps inside
+ Show Spoiler +
Some of you now might be alarmed, because LT has more blue, but I think there might be more to it than a completely open field.
Probably compare the distances from the area between Nat's choke and 'area of control' behind LT's towers with these at Decline: On Decline you have to move and scout more to have better control on the bigger number of potential entrances of opposing forces in and out of the centrals areas. Also LT's central space is same as in Decline, but because of the small holes instead of towers it has another actual openness.
Please play the map and let me know what you think!
|
IMO Decline does a much better job of forcing you to constantly control the map than LT does. Camping the middle does not work as well because there are so many ways around it.
|
woah it looks so pretty :D
can u remove this holes in the middle, i really dont like them. need some room to fight
|
also, make the spawning like shakuras, i hate it on meta and LT when they spawn close because the other half of the map NEVER gets used.
|
Agree with the spawning.
Also I don't uderstand the logic behind large open spaces are good for terran. Open centers aren't bad or good for terran, they just allow max zergs to kill off a maxed mech army before zerg is #rofled. From experience I've found a huge ball of tanks eaisier to bust in a field than with obsticles they can shoot over everywere.
Hopefully I don't sound full of shit!
To add insult to injury...not a fan of the grass verses dirt texture...
|
On January 11 2011 05:12 danson wrote:
also, make the spawning like shakuras, i hate it on meta and LT when they spawn close because the other half of the map NEVER gets used.
I think that from the layout that actually is quite diferent from LT in many details, Decline plays really different if you spawn in 6vs3 and 9vs12 OR in 9vs6 and 12vs3 o'clock positions.
What would you do when you are on 4 expansions? Will you be on Main, Nat and 1-Gas and HY? > You would have to keep an eye on your Nat's choke, the area between your Nat's ramp and HY's ramp and probably also on the other HY ramp. Probably better take the other Main+Nat instead of HY? You might loose control of the centre of the map..
I think there are quite some points to watch out for in games and many things to discuss and I am open to change, but this map will play different than LT, although they both share the general concept of 4-spawn and mirror symmetrie.
on holes: well, I guess we will see how it works out, but there should be enough space. more plays=more replays=more evidence=reason for change
on spawning: this is something I thought about a lot when optimizing rush distances. once again the numbers: 117/137/155 (Main to Main) and 93/120/137 (Nat to Nat). this means spawns are less close than Metalopolic in close spawn position and longer in far spawn. So with 117 rush distance between close spawns it is a legitimate setup in my opinion.
I am working on a concept where a shakuras like spawn setup makes more sense for my next map.
@summerfast:
I can follow your argumentation and I think we have the same understanding. open fields broken into smaller parts by holes help zerg (maneuvering) and protoss (forcefields). Camping should not work in this map, because of the much wider space covered by both outer pathes. My point was that if there were no holes at all, Terran could shift from left to right quickly even with tanks: the holes prevent a wide spreading or shifting of a big wall of siegetanks.
your comment on textures: well, that's just like your opinion....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/cDgEH.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/v6qhX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/FxPT3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/hm2cc.jpg)
