Hello fellow TLers!

This is my very first map. I did spend quite a lot of time with it and I would be happy to hear your opinions. Any criticism is appreciated!

Map info

Playable area: 132 x 118
Tile set: Ulaan (Cave) and Ulnar (Xel'Naga Worldship)
Bases: 12
Status: Published on EU (Probably not finished edition)

Background
As a first map, I wanted to create a pretty standard, good looking 4-player map, where the nature of the game should not be decided too heavily based upon spawn locations (i.e Metalopolis). Instead I tried to make rush distances fairly equal and you should be able to get three bases without too much trouble in every spawn location. Granted, It might be difficult on horizontal spawns, but the natural to the base positioned vertically to yours is a viable option.

Overview
[image loading]

(Click on image for larger picture)

Tilted view
[image loading]

(Click on image for larger picture)

Main, natural and third setup
[image loading]

(Click on image for larger picture)

Features

Xel'Naga towers overloock the two vertical paths through the center as well as the natural expansions and airspace.
[image loading]

Line of sight blockers are located between the thirds.
[image loading]

Only one creep tumor is required to connect the main and natural expansion.
[image loading]

The gas is NOT siegable from between the natural expansions.
[image loading]

Buildable and pathable streams are distributed throughout the map. These are only aesthetical and do not interact with gameplay.
[image loading]

Analyser pictures

[image loading]

Credit goes to Bait for testing and good advice

Vehemus

United States586 Posts

February 22 2011 21:52 GMT

At first glance I was going to say that the positions look extremely close and could be broken by siege tanks, but upon reading in detail it's clear that this isn't the case. I really, really like this map and would love to play on it.

I don't know that I necessarily like the watchtowers being able to see into the natural expansion, nor do I like that the watchtowers cover the entirety of both paths when passing through vertically but absolutely none of the path when going horizontally.

Very nice job and keep up the great work. This map is pleasing to the eye and has an interesting layout.

horsman

Canada45 Posts

February 22 2011 21:53 GMT

looks like a really good map, actually.

soulcrusher

United States143 Posts

February 22 2011 21:59 GMT

Looks awesome.

Penke

Sweden346 Posts

February 22 2011 22:01 GMT

On February 23 2011 06:52 Vehemus wrote:
At first glance I was going to say that the positions look extremely close and could be broken by siege tanks, but upon reading in detail it's clear that this isn't the case. I really, really like this map and would love to play on it.

I don't know that I necessarily like the watchtowers being able to see into the natural expansion, nor do I like that the watchtowers cover the entirety of both paths when passing through vertically but absolutely none of the path when going horizontally.

Very nice job and keep up the great work. This map is pleasing to the eye and has an interesting layout.

Well, I fiddled around quite a bit with watchtower positions, and I realized that they don't provide much information at all if they don't cover the naturals (and by the way, you can just barely see the nexus/CC/hatch, nothing else) since the vertical path could be covered just as easily with a unit. In most blizzard maps, the towers cover multiple attack paths, but that is impossible with this map, so I thought that the added information of the natural expansions should make up for that.

Also, in order to cover the horizontal paths as well it would require 4 towers, which I think is a bit too much. If the towers are going to only cover the horizontal positions then I feel that the space there gets to cluttered and if a map split occurs it could occur vertically, which is not intended.

Maynarde

Australia1286 Posts

February 22 2011 22:10 GMT

I was gonna cry about how the bottom half of the map has a stream through it and it wouldn't be balanced, THEN saw how it was a "buildable / pathable" stream. Awesome map dude, would love to give it a go.

Iamyournoob

Germany595 Posts

February 22 2011 22:11 GMT

At first I was a little worried, but the more I got a sense of the map the more i like it - especially the look. So, yeah it is great, but what about the mid? I wonder if it is too easy to be abused by colossus...

WniO

United States2706 Posts

February 22 2011 22:12 GMT

that looks pretty fun to play. the water looks great but it would look better if the rivers weren't so straight, but maybe that's the style you were going for. otherwise its pretty impressive for your first going.

Penke

Sweden346 Posts

February 22 2011 22:15 GMT

On February 23 2011 07:11 Iamyournoob wrote:
At first I was a little worried, but the more I got a sense of the map the more i like it - especially the look. So, yeah it is great, but what about the mid? I wonder if it is too easy to be abused by colossus...

I haven't actually thought about that. If it turns out to be too much of a problem the cliffs in the midle could always be made unpathable since they don't serve a big role anyways.

Thanks for your comment

FlaShFTW

United States10106 Posts

February 22 2011 22:20 GMT

#10

On February 23 2011 07:10 Maynarde wrote:
I was gonna cry about how the bottom half of the map has a stream through it and it wouldn't be balanced, THEN saw how it was a "buildable / pathable" stream. Awesome map dude, would love to give it a go.

SAME!!!

also, this map looks SICK. first look (wow, streams??? WTF?) and then as i read on, it began clear!!! i was ENLIGHTENED!!! ok jk.

iGrok

United States5142 Posts

February 22 2011 22:43 GMT

#11

It looks ok. But if we spawn, say, top positions, I can't take a third, and probably not a 4th either. Its a very zoned map. Would be good for 2v2 Top vs Bottom.

Aesthetically its nice except for the streams. As previously mentioned by someone, they're a little straight. Also, they're the same width the whole way through... mix it up a bit ^^.

A very well put together post! And for a first map, damn thats good. I see good things in your future.

P.S. next time use spoiler tags for all the pictures though ^^

101toss

3232 Posts

February 22 2011 23:01 GMT

#12

Looks great. At least much better than blizzard's map pool

Moody

United States750 Posts

February 23 2011 00:05 GMT

#13

Top v Top and Bottom v Bottom would be really really difficult to take a 3rd on. I mean... it appears that if I siege up at my 3rd, I can shell you coming out of your 3rd. o.O Dunno how it would actually play out, but it seems really metalopol-ish.

Penke

Sweden346 Posts

February 23 2011 08:13 GMT

#14

Thanks for all the kind comments

Yes, horizontal positions is the hardest ones to take a third on, but these positions tend to favor longer games than close positions on for example Metal or LT for several reasons.

1: You expand away from your opponent when you take your natural, and the area is quite choked.
2: The rush distance on horizontal positions is actually longer than vertical. Both main to main and nat to nat.
3: The third base would probably be the natural vertically located to yours. You can easily defend the attack path in front of your base, and if your opponent chooses to go around the center through the attack path away from your base, he leaves his own base very vulnerable.
4: You can choose to take the standard third as your fourth (or even your third) as in horizontal positions, the natural ramp is not as good of an option to attack through because of the destructible rocks and the easy defence, which makes your defence focused on only entrance (If however your opponent sieges to hard in this position, the natural ramp once again becomes an option). There are of course one of these expansions for either player, unlike Metal or LT where it's shared. (And to Moody: No you can not siege the ramp on the other third from yours, as the siege tank range is only about three fifths of the way. If you however were to position your tanks on the low ground closer to your opponents third then there are vision blockers as well as high ground advantage that will help solving this problem.

I have no idea about what you mean with "the streams are to straight" :S

Anyways, thanks for the feedback

Bait

Sweden3 Posts

February 24 2011 20:44 GMT

#15

Thx for adding me to the tester!

I have read all the comments and they seams to love it and the feedbacks seams really helpfull.
Great work!

Ownos

United States2147 Posts

February 24 2011 21:09 GMT

#16

Looks really good, but I can see some issues with horizontal spawns. Namely, the third being so damn close. But I guess that's still 1 base better than LT/Metal's situation in those positions. I can see the map being really fun on cross/vertical positions. Map also seems a notch smaller than most Blizzard maps as well. Too lazy to pull up the actual figures to compare.

Vod.kaholic

United States1052 Posts

February 24 2011 21:27 GMT

#17

Thismap looks really really nice. I'd like to try it out, and i'd suggest that you move the horizontal spawns farther from each other and expand the middle area. As it stands the thirds are terribly close to each other and it's terribly reminiscent of metal because you're going to be hard pressed to take a third if your opponent can get a lead and take his ahead of yours.

sevia

United States954 Posts

February 24 2011 21:49 GMT

#18

I really like the aesthetics and cross-position layout, but horizontal positions suffer from an issue that I see in a lot of maps: by the time you can get your third, you're already butting heads with your opponent's territory. There needs to be a really fluent base layout from horizontal, vertical, and cross positions; when maps have extremely close thirds like this it kills any chance of late-game play.