|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZTfAF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Rgg1.png)
MotM #7 finalist! Score:Balance: 7.8 Aesthetics: 7.6 Intangibles: 7.2 Average: 7.5
Features
- Rotational symetry. One third on each side of your main should be equally attractive and similiar, although not identical in layout.
- Small high ground pods with ramps next to the left hand third. There is a one three square gap that allows units to pass shoulder to shoulder.
+ Show Spoiler +
- XelNaga Watchtower spies the middle platform and the narrow chokes next to it. It also neutralizes the advantage of the LoSB line on each side of the middle platform.
- Reaper backdoors between third and other player's main (in close positions spawn) - narrow paths which allow for small cliff-jumping units (or collossi) to pass by. Tanks can be dropped on the path, but can only siege the area behind the mineral line.
Facts
Players: 4
Map size: 152x152 (playable, incl. air)
Resoruces: 16 regular bases
XelNaga Towers: 1 in the map core
Short main-to-main: 146
Short nat-to-nat: ~120
Cross main-to-main: 179
Cross nat-to-nat: ~155
Main size: 30 CCs
Textures
+ Show Spoiler +
Published on EU as TPW Core Delta.
Analyser
+ Show Spoiler +Summary ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LM2iU.jpg) Short main-to-main ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zWlFG.jpg) Short nat-to-nat ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rC8ZI.jpg) Cross main-to-main ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MDk9L.jpg) Cross nat-to-nat ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wa4k5.jpg)
Detail Images
+ Show Spoiler +
|
A balanced/playable version of Delta Quadrant ? 
Looking nice, good balanced layout and visualy as good as it gets with that tileset. Not sure why you got those ramps up to the unpathable highgrounds in the middle of the map though. Aesthetics I guess?
|
looks good, gonna play some games later
|
@Archvil3 I had no thought of Delta Quadrant when I made the concept for this map  I agree, the tileset was a test, I'll likely change to comethign with better blending textures.
The ramps onto the high ground is a small feature. Part of that high ground is pathable, so you can build a pylon there, drop medivac load of troops, hide banelings, etc. Perhaps it shoud be bigger to affect gameplay more, but I don't want to make that third much harder to defend.
@Mereel cool, let me know how they go and what you think of the map after that A known bug is that the mineral lines are not always balanced or optimally placed.
|
ok there are some problems with the mineralz but u will fix that anyways.
a really huge thing was the terrain texture at the natural, its the same on highground, ramp and lowground in front of it. i had to search the ramp.....i really couldnt see it.
u better change that too^^
|
Ah so this is the crevasse clone you were talking about I guess?
|
@Mereel Yeah it's the tileset limitations that forces me to use the same texturing ..  I'll prob change the setting.
@FlopTurnReaver - lol. No there are no XNTs on the low ground 
|
Those blue and yellow lines rond the side are those the play bounds and the veiw bounds in the map maker? cos when ive messed about in their thats what i thought they were if im wrong just ignore this bit but it seems like your cutting through some mineral lines etc although it does look fine on the analyzer just make sure their is space for drops etc around the main nat as it will be verry easy to secure 3-4 bases otherwise as you get into the mid game.
|
I really like it, my only recommendation is to add symmetrical rocks at one of the 3rd/4th base locations. This is the way delta quadrant should have been made.
|
There is a mineral patch at the 2, 3, 8, and 9 oclock bases that is blocked by the two in front of it. I think this is what Mereel was talking about. Also, I prefer having a square or two of breathing room from the blue boundary line at all outlying points, but it's up to you.
The layout is sort of generic but it's quite a bit more interesting once you get to 3 bases or more, because then there are two push paths and the center terrain comes into play. The ramp outside the lefthand third is sort of random, I'm not sure how it would be used. Because of the direction the ramp points it's hard to use it defensively, and you can't really attack from it except for tanks. So it's mostly a hiding place and a pylon spot, it seems to me. But that's fine because it's better than a hole in the ground.
The righthand third is quite wide open, it seems scary depending on the situation. It might be better to provide a defensive choke structure, but that would throw off the layout a little.
Anyway I quite like it, but I feel like it's boring, even though I can't pin down any particular insufficiency. The middle is really interesting actually. I think the first 4 bases is why I feel that way, because you really just defend some open ground with two paths in. This leads to a large fight with two big armies off a 2base economy, with less back and forth action.
[edit] Regarding above statement, a better player would meet an attack at the forward choke points, which makes for a more interesting game. So it's good that it rewards forward position like that, and may be the answer to my concerns.
Nevertheless your sense of proportion is shown here again, nice work.
|
@Elgear sort of. It's the blue line, but it's not accurate. I'll increase teh map for some more airspace I think. Thanks for poiting out, a valid point.
@Whiplash Destructible rocks blocking the CC placement? Please elaborate why that should be on Delta Quadrant and on my map. Are the third and fourth terribly close to the main and nat?
@EatThePath Your feedback always seems insightful and clear to me - and thus valuable What is it you like about the middle? I think that's the only opinion you don't elaborate on.
That the map is somewhat typical and booring beacuse of it's openess has been my concern as well. I'm trying to add details that will add and twist the smaller features of the map, without comprimising the map layout.
I'm with you on the point that I two big armies fighting in open space on 2 base economy is not very GG. With back and forth action you mean harrassment? Or do you mean armies dancing around one another trying to get the best positions?
Good point about the forward chokes. Did you notice that there is a 2x4 doodad in the middle of the wide path?
Map Update
I've done some smaller updates that adressess some of the concerns. OP updated with images.
* Changed the cliff type of the nat ramp, so that it's easier to spot.
* Mineral lines updated, should be playable now, although I havn't been able tot test yet.
* Extended map playable bounds to 150x150 from 146x146 for some more air space around the map edges.
* Adding LOSB-pockets outside the nat at the siegeable edges ... which are also cliff-walk/jumpable.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nzYX2.jpg)
|
I made some adjustment to the more awkward feature - the small high ground by the left-hand third.
I deemed it OK to choke up the map a little here, since it'is so wide open in general. Now, there are two ramps on each side, and only small units can move across easily. There is space for 3 pylons or 1 pylon and 2 cannons, for instance (or 12 Sensor Towers
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/HsETU.jpg)
I think more space will make the high ground too much of deathball advantage. Those could camp and harrass the third. The area also helps creep spread and have room for 3 spine crawlers. Mainly, I guess, it will be used for 'safe scouting' with a worker to see if the opponent will take a third. Scouting overlords will be more vulnerable compared to a unpathable high ground, but that also adds some tension to the gameplay.
The left hand possible thrid should be slightly more easy to protect now and the right hand would be slightly harder, unless you make use of the high ground.
Do you think this is a change to the better or no? Why?
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/EwrRv.jpg)
|
I think you should just open that center area with space.
|
On April 29 2011 16:24 IronManSC wrote:
I think you should just open that center area with space.
I'm trying to accomplish some unique map feature here Any good reason why I should make a hole instead? Please elaborate.
|
Looks like a mech heaven
Maybe remake the 4th bases as golds instead?
|
This is such a cool looking map. Next chance I get I will definitely try to play some games on it. I wish that Blizzard maps were more like this instead of Delta Quadrant....
|
Map looks really sweet! Definitely would like to see on NA
|
Looks beautiful, I foresee nice counterattack routes. Love to see this on NA!
|
The new raised position with ramps on both sides is much better for fighting off tanks there. It's much simpler for devious flanks too (like speedling runby). Overall it just seems much more dangerous. This is a step in the right direction to me. Putting a pylon up there will be a landmark in the progress of expanding and moving out on the map as a Protoss.
The more I think about it, the more I like it; excellent example of exploitable terrain.
|
Currently re-making the tileset from space to lunar. I think the pink construction vs the pale ground and sand is quite nice and clean.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EFmy1.jpg)
I'm also debating wether I the nat is too easy to defend or no. The standard nowadays seems to lean towards the un-safe nats of XNC and the like. However, the rotational symetry imbalances causes me to pause and think twice about adding a second ramp or backdoor to the nat.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6DiwP.jpg)
I wish there was destructible ramps, so that the player may destroy the second ramp in certain matchups and close position tvp. Note that the ramp creates a shortcut to the right-hand third.
Also, I added rocks to the narrow path close to the middle, overseen by the XNT in the centre (not seen on this pic, see OP for overview image).
Your thoughts on this?
|
thanks for the effort you put in this map, but I would like to see less and less of rotational symmetric maps as they improve the effect of luck on the game and that is never a good thing.
|
@Walls - thats noted, although I belieeve that ppl say that beacuse of a principle rather than having their own experience backing up. There are many cases when rotational symetry scr*ws up close position spawns. The idea is to keep the map as well balanced as possible regardless of spawns BUT still a different game in all spawn possibilities - the benefits of rotational symetry. That's why there are two possible thirds on this map, so that you can alsways choose the one that suits you best depending on player spawns.
|
Loving this!, please don't chamnge the natural layout, it's fine, and definately don't add destructible rocks, 4th bases are good!
great job!
|
I agree with walls that there is no need to have a rotational spawn map... There really are few benefits other than making it easier for the mapper, when it comes to having equal rush distances in all positions and such. I sure hope they are phased out of map pools in the future.
I don't really like how there is only a tiny gap on those small ramp areas... I'd rather you could bring a larger group through there, more like on backwater gulch. Especially with rocks in the central area, the pathing is really restricted. On backwater gulch if you have a small force it is easy to go across it but here it's almost never useful, and it's almost always faster to go around.
|
@Exstasy Thanks, cool. Why shoudl I not add destructible rocks? do you mean those in the centre? What is it you like about the 4th bases?
I'll probably won't add that small ramp and rocks to the nat, unless players feel the nat is too safe... can a nat be too safe?
@Gfire - That there are few benefits to rotational symetry is not really an argument. Big imbalances beacuse of base layout and such are. Smaller imbalances, some says matters so little, it just demands more skill from the players to adapt. SC2 is still a game with 3 distinct races with balance ever shifting. You could look at a map the same way you look at the races. Different makes more fun, as long as it as balanced as possible, right? Well, that's what I think is worth pursuing here and what I want to achieve with every feature.
Thanks for your feedback on the high ground. I supose Backwater Gulch is a valid comparision, but is it a good example of how it should be made? Some would say T and P are imba on that map beacuse of the narrow areas around the nat AND beacuse of that high ground by the third. I thought I rather make a narrow path on high ground that making a hole or a wall, in this case. That it won't be used much is OK I think - it's far better than being abused
Are the destructible rocks by the centre really restricting movement? I mean, you can break them - if they are in the way, well thats how rocks should be used - they shoudl be in the way so you have a good reason to destroy them. The XNT can see if any of the rocks are being destroyed (one feature encourages the use of another feature). Also, the rocks being there encourages players to use the middle more and the shortest path cross positions goes through the middle early game, but once the rocks are destroyed you prob use that path instead.
|
Update:
- Remade tileset. Aesthetics are about 40% done (texturing and doodads).
- Added a bunch of DSRs to middle (blocking the shortest path)
- Added a DSR backdoor to the nat.
All points open for feedback and discussion, of course. Nothing is set in stone.
BTW - the lack of respne is disturbing (see my wall of text the rprev post).
I really want feedback and I don't expect wall-of-text replies, just some elaboration on the topics.
|
This is as pretty as some of those GSL maps, real props for that, really nice on the eye
|
I think you could open up the data editor and change those cliffs so they are ground cliffs and not space cliffs, so you wouldn't have to use all the rocks to cover everything up.
|
@Gfire - That's possible? Thanks.. how do you change cliffs in Data?
|
Well, I haven't tried that exact thing. I'm not sure if it's tied to the model or what, I'm sure it's possible but I don't know how deep you have to go to do it.
You can use the data types Terrain Cliff and Terrain Cliff Mesh
From viewing the models, it doesn't seem to be tied to that, so it should be able to be done in the editor, but I haven't yet figured out how.
|
I noticed that the map analyzer says that every base has 2.5K resources instead of 17.0K, is this a glitch with the analyzer?
Also, to get natural cliffs, use the "same level cliff" tool and make sure that natural cliffs are selected instead of man-made cliffs. By default, the editor does not allow the two types of cliff to touch each other, but if you go to tools->brush->allow cliff merging, this restriction will be removed.
|
@Qegixar - no idea why the analyser says more resoruces. But I'll double check those, thanks!
It's not the natural cliffs I want, but the avernus manmade cliffs are made for space (as low ground), not ground, so when painting it, there are holes in the ground were the cliffs rise from, as you can see on the overview image.
I havn't figured out how to change this and I rather cover the holes with doodads than changing into another manmade
|
ugh i dont like how theres a double ramp thing like how most maps are going.
|
I feel that this map favors zerg a lot because the zerg can easily take his natural and his third without having to worry about backdoor entrances or openness. Also, the only places where a terran can be an asshole with tanks is on those designated places in the center, and there is no way that tanks can shoot mineral lines freely.
On another note it needs about 8 more destructible rocks blocking the expansions before it's blizzard enough to be worthy of the map pool.
|
It looks great to me. It's a large map like TDA, but the chokes make it actually balanced for TvZ. The only real complaint I have is that the natural for the third should be slightly wider open. Other than that it looks sick. I'd definitely be willing to at least try it.
|
On May 23 2011 01:59 Walls wrote:
thanks for the effort you put in this map, but I would like to see less and less of rotational symmetric maps as they improve the effect of luck on the game and that is never a good thing.
Rotational symmetry doesn't really affect it when the mains are at the corners of the maps. You would have the exact same with reflected anyways.
|
WhinO - not a valid argument, IMO Is it a good feature for this map or no? Why/why not?
Peterblue -
the natural for the third should be slightly wider open
I'm glad you like it and would try it. What is 'the natural for the third'? Do you mean the ramp between natural and third?
@ Kinetik_Inferno
I feel that this map favors zerg a lot because the zerg can easily take his natural and his third without having to worry about backdoor entrances or openness. Also, the only places where a terran can be an asshole with tanks is on those designated places in the center, and there is no way that tanks can shoot mineral lines freely.
I can't help but feeling this is not a thorough analysis of the map. There are features that favours T and P as well. Just analyse the map from those perspectives too. For instance, T has a lot of space behind mineral lines to drop, P have lots of places to proxy pylon. T and P are quite safe early game with small main and nat on higher ground, etc.
On the other hand, it is easy to make a map overbalanced for T by making the map too narrow or have too much high ground ... I'm avoiding that, and then it becomes easy to overdo it. Your points are certainly noted. Thanks!
On another note it needs about 8 more destructible rocks blocking the expansions before it's blizzard enough to be worthy of the map pool.
Please, would you like to elaborate on this? And I'm not even being sarcastic. Must I block all possible thirds to prevent fast 3 bases .. why? Is it really a good thing to 'make a map blizzard enough for ladder'?
|
oh very clever
every map doesnt need to be the same. that small of an entrance is just asking for macrofest 6 trillion and leaves no room for aggression.
|
Stop whin(o)ing and be constructive, thanks
|
lower both the main and the nat so the main is on a cliff and the natural has a open choke instead of a ramp.
|
I think you're right in that the 2 base layout with DSR backdoor is booring, since it's so common on Bliz maps, but doesn't the nearby expansions (third and fourth) change this and make the map different?
A Z who has problem attacking a T or P on that ramp will simply get 3 or 4 bases and defend those quite easily, then prevail by numbers or air.
I've been suggesting crevasse style nat ramp (partly beacuse I'm afraid the DSR backdoor may be in favour for one player only in close positions), but ppl prefer the DSR backdoor.. I'm not sure why
|
exactly! so basically what you're saying is that a zerg cant attack in there so the zerg is forced into playing a certain style. (macro fest)
im not trying to be negative nancy because overall the map is good its just i dont like ones that produce the same types of games over and over... like python or destination.
|
Yeah. But is it a bad thing to force the game into a three or four base game? I want to watch logner matches. Consider this map in a map pool where players choose maps... will Z discard this map beacuse there is disadvantage early game? Why, if the map is fine and maybe even advantageous once you move from two base play?
I'm mentally moving away from the backdoor. I see more pros than cons right now. What about Sanctuarium-style or Crevasse-style nat ramp layout? I'll keep lowering height levels an option (in the back of my head, before my eyes).
Edit: Sanctuarium nat ramp-layout:
+ Show Spoiler +
Sanctuarium, full:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I've got a new suggestion on a feature. It's a reaper backdoor betwen one player's third and the other player's main. It goes along the shoet air distance path and allows siege tanks only to reach the area BEHIND the mineral line. Large utnis can only move in the part of the path that is closest to the main.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zrc06.jpg)
The high ground around the path is unpathable .. you can only drop on the path.
|
Planned change:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/H0Efu.jpg)
- left third closer to main, so that the forward choke and distances to nat ramp becomes about the same for both thirds. Also, the small high ground is bigger. Now you can hide a building on it and pass with a small army. Camping on it wont do much, though.
Do you like this change or no, and why?
New detail images, showing off each of the reaper backdoors. They go between the right hand third and the other player's main. Which one do you like best and why? Which one looks least appealing and why?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u89wy.jpg)
The other three:
+ Show Spoiler +
Also updated OP with new overview image. The lighting is wrong, though. Don't know what galaxy was thinking when extracting.
|
i'm liking the changes, improves the map balance alot, imho
|
it's a beautiful map. Makes me think of Alien, with the foggy lunar landscape. I have a feeling that it's simply too big for 1v1 though.
|
Looks very well done sir ^_^. Is this map going to be available on NA?
|
Could be a good map; however, I very much dislike the fact that the center is cluttered with chokes. Would be far better with more open space and less high ground/ramps/etc
|
@FallDownMarigold Thanks for the input, but could you be more specific? I read the centre as several choices of paths some mor enarrow than others, but in general its quite open and the middle pod is very wide. The map in general has a very open feel to it, and you need to diverse that with chokes to make it attractive for all races
@PandaBlunt - Thanks! Dont know yet, but it's likely!
@lefix thanks! Please elaborate
|
did you try to move the tower strcture between the central cliff/ramps and the nat and third a bit more towards the base? i think there is a bit more space needed at the bottom end of the central ramps.
|
@Samro225am are you afriad an army will be trapped in between the high grounds, or why do you think there should be more space there?
The problem, is, if I alter that space, I also move the forward choke of the left possible third towards the base, which I believe is less good.
|
|
|
This is a good looking map. If you need someone to host it on the US servers send me a PM, I'd gladly do it for you.
|
Melt, I'm not sure what purpose the reaper path serves. Is that to balance reaper scouting time? Is it mainly for tank drops? Just a random spot that might or might not get used? Maybe I'm being stupid but please explain. =D
I think it's fine aesthetically and you should have them look different in each corner--some are dilapidated with rocky edges and some still have their metal sides with buildings on top, etc etc. One problem I have is that they are totally useless for getting blink stalkers into a main, and I think you should make them slightly less convoluted, aka slightly more open and direct, in order to facilitate a 2-phase blink pathway.
As for the map, I haven't checked it out for a while! I'm glad you're still working on it! I really like it, even though it still seems big.
I have a sick sick idea for an alternative to the DSR backdoor. I'm also growing tired of that trend an I think it should be avoided where possible. Honestly, I don't think this map needs it at all. There is plenty of incentive to just go down and take a rather safe 3rd. If a player wants to turtle at their natural... fine whatever, their loss, lol. SC2 will be less and less about the first ten minutes as strategy and execution continues to develop.
Anyway, you should have a slowly unobstructing backdoor. It's not blocked by rocks but some kind of obstruction that will be removed after a certain time period, say 10 minutes. This will be an immediate, binary change but you can make it appear like some sort of cool process has gradually occured, like flooding has finally drained, or a fire has burnt itself out, or a glowing wall of light has powered down, or a mechanical wall has been lowered.
This will help players see the progress of the event and know how soon until the door is open. You can even have text/audio messages display to warn about it.
I have very little experience playing with the data editor and a slightly better amount of experience using triggers, but I would love to work on this with you if you like the idea. Maybe we can get ihasaKAROT to help.
This is like the tower on Xel'Naga Fortress btw. We can spearhead trigger-based events in melee maps. ~
|
@Barrin - understand your general concern and appreciates it!
@Chargelot - Thanks, I'll think about it
@EatThePath - wow you're crazy
1. DSR timed backdoor - It's great that you want to, but I don't dare do anything like this for this map, at least not yet Not sure how you would do that with the data editor (my knowledge is kinda limited), although I'm sure it can be done. The problem I see with the concept is that it takes control away from the players. Why not just have a DSR with higher HP than usual?
I wanted to do a Creavasse DSR nat ramp, but no one seems to like it. What if I made the ramp twice the size and added DSRs to each side of it. Then you could open your own in the direction of the third you choose, but if the enemy breaks them both down, you have a superwide ramp into your nat.
2. Reaper backdoor. Of course it helps reapers scout and not much else. Tanks can be dropped there, but only siege the area behind the mineral line. Beacuse of rotational symetry, I dont want to give one player to much of an advantage by using this feature, so blinking stalkers support is out, I think. I realize it's a feature that hardly will be used, although I like adding harrassing possibilities as much as possible. Rather have this backdoor than a gap.
Update
- Moved the left hand thirds and changed the high ground next to it, mostly according to the suggestion a few posts back (originally suggested by lefiix, thanks mate!). The possible third's distance to nat ramp and forward choke shoudl be more similar. Also, the small highg round is no longer so close to teh left hand third's CC placement. + Show Spoiler +Lefix noticed that once on e had expanded there, the CC would prevent an army to move from nat to defend it effectively.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9ZndF.jpg)
Close ups:
+ Show Spoiler +
- added 3 square big shelf for reapers/collossi between left hand third and main.
It allows for blinking stalkers or tank drops, but not very effectively. 3 squares limits it's use quite a lot, although it's a perfect collossi or reaper eleveator.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l4Mxe.jpg)
|
Reworked the right-hand thirds. Beacuse of rotational symetry and non-turnable mineral fields, they look different in horizontal and vertical bases. I found some good examples on bliz' Terminus and used those. Edit: realized thsoe were 7 minerals not 8! So now its a modded 8 patch-variant.
Here's pics with pathing and all
Left hand third
Horizontal
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8DdJq.jpg)
Vertical
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Rap7.jpg)
I also filled some of the gap behind the mineral line with non-pathable high ground. Some love for mutas and the like.
Also, this map was submitted to MotM #7 . Wish it good luck, beacuse it's gonna need it. This month is crazy.
I've been working on aesthetics + Show Spoiler + and made a logo for the thread. OP is updated.
|
Visually awesome. Map itself looks great
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Lpp8M.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FSAO9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mJDFO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/F5Dce.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sLH0O.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IEVQ5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DIs9Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/euTIU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q6Zk6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b84j3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uHimR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kZSEe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/au5Rh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zVxrw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eFIkP.jpg)
