[M] (4) Into the Storm

LunaSaint

United Kingdom620 Posts

April 30 2011 05:41 GMT

Map: Into the Storm 1.2

Players: 4 - 1v1 design, 12/3/6/9 starting
Size: 156x156 (140x140 + 8 width air space)
Expansions: 17. Middle has 8 normal patches and 2 Rich Gases. Rest are regular.
Rush Distance: 129 Close spawns, 155 Cross Spawns
XWTs: None.
Destructible Rocks: None.
LoSBs: Around the outside of the sunken ring in the centre
Servers: EU

Concept: Moderate sized open map. Note how while it looks wide open, the resources provide chokepoints. This does mean that the nearer expansions to your opponent get increasingly vulnerable.

The few attack routes make it possible to contain an opponent fairly easily, but the comparatively long ground distance between the main, natural and third allow for very strong air play.

Aesthetically, it's a murky, wetlands type of area.

+ Show Spoiler [Overview] +

Main.

Natural.

Third.

Fourth.

Centre.

Full map at an angle.

+ Show Spoiler [Detail Shots] +

Choke pathing. Very similar to that of a ramp.

Creep spread between main and natural is a little long, but still takes only 2 tumors.

Fourth expansion and sunken ring.

The sunken ring is the same cliff level as its surroundings.

+ Show Spoiler [Map Analyser] +

Changelog:

30/04/2011 - v1.0 - Initial map frame published!
30/04/2011 - v1.1 - Trees added between mains and close spawn fourths to prevent siege abuse. This also weakens cliff walkers a little.
Thirds have been made easier to defend, and a small choke has been added nearby them.
Mineral count in the centre expansion has been reduced, which also allows for more space to attack it. Really, you'd want to take it for the gas anyway.
Space added behind mains to support air tech more.
19/06/2011 - v1.2 - Trees and Reeds made smaller, many trees trimmed away to increase visibility. Trees in centre replaced with high ground area, want to test whether it is acceptable with pathing. Textures updated. added critters, because Artosis always complains about them when streaming.

Concerns:

Planetary Fortresses.
Short-ish rush distance for close spawns.

Request:
Basically, due to my lack of experience/skill with the game, and lack of contacts, I've not really been able to test this map. So as well as for general map design feedback, I'm looking for testers!

Download:

v1.0 [url blocked]
v1.1 [url blocked]
v1.2 [url blocked]

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

April 30 2011 07:40 GMT

I think you can fix some of the concerns you have listed and avoid some other problems by making the map size a little larger or rearranging the existing elements. If you make the map dimensions larger you'll end up with some void space, which might be desirable to add some flying areas to break up the open space (good for harass and whatnot). You should try rearranging first though, to see how far you can get.

The main-nat distance doesn't seem too bad. Put down some hatcheries in the editor, and then connect with tumors. If it only takes 3, that's far but not too bad, 2 being desirable. For P and T it's not too bad, it looks comparable to Shakuras or Tal'Darim.

The walling options for the natural are quite yucky. Easy ways to fix this: adjust the main-nat choke, or shrink the ramp to middle. However, I really like the shape of the main choke and natural. I would make it diagonal and try to give a 3 or 4 barracks wall area above the ramp. I'm going to download and play with it and post some pictures.

The right hand third can be hit by tanks from the adjacent main. If terran spawns at 9 and zerg at 12 for example. That's way bad. I think you should just shift the main a little and reduce the extent of it at that cliff.

The resources as choke points is nifty. The way you've set it up is intriguing, and I think it succeeds in intention. The center base and the vast open area is a good way to situate them, nice work there. But that 4th base ends up being almost impossible to defend unless you're already in the lead. A very small force behind the mineral line can wreak havoc, requiring dedicated defenses. The distance between them is so small with no intervening terrain to use either, more or less precluding opponents from taking adjacent ones. (Diagonal is okay though.)

This is where at first I thought you should just make the map bigger. But I realized you can just invert the arc of the resources pull them closer to the ramp, and it improves the situation drastically. You preserve the chokepoint though you alter its flow slightly. The base becomes much much safer. Because of the holes between the mineral patches, you can run your workers away immediately towards your main/nat, or the third. The CC is more vulnerable but I think players generally want it to buffer the workers anyway, and static defense is easier to place / more effective. You can also defend it with your army a little better.

A downside of the layout you have is that a player's first four bases are essentially connected in a direct line with no branching attack paths. (I think this is related to your comment that it's "too simple".) If you want to change this, I would increase the map size a little to create a little more space in the middle, and then put a hole in front of the geysers at the fourth. This way you can attack that base more directly from one side, or push past it on the other. I'll make an example picture.

The center base seems theoretically too strong with a planetary there because it helps terran control the middle so forcibly. That might be counteracted by the shear unlikeliness of it, but it might do well to open a little more space to make attacking a repair-planetary easier.

Overall I think it's a very interesting progressive design with plenty of merit! I especially like the ring of LosB, it gives the map quite a bit of character. The wetlands style is a good fit. If I manage to play it at all via the download (on NA) I'll let you know. =)

Update with pics to come.

[edit]

+ Show Spoiler +

This is a quick version of the diagonal ramp. It's slightly harder to attack up that, but I think it's okay to have a 3 forcefield choke on 2 bases. You need 3 barracks + 1 more building to wall completely. Note you could shift the pylon to leave a zealot door slot. Anyway, something like this?

Here's the inverted 4th. I rounded off the righthand chasm to open the choke a little towards mid. The trees provide an "alternate" route to attack that base (or slip by the choke and through the minerals I guess). Notice how the tree clump creates one tight pathway inside the LosB line, and the other path around it requires you to first push through the LosB. I also played around with making the middle base more symmetric and traversable.

This is a quick adjustment to the 3rd layout and the cliff of the main above it. Tank can only hit the close geyser. Note in summary below that you only lost 3CCs, and could easily regain that on the opposite edge.

Analyzer summary with handpainted no pathing to simulate the tree clumps. I only adjusted the 4ths and the bottom left corner. You can see that if you put in the tree clump to add more paths, it gets a little too tight in the center. You could remove the center base entirely (though I sort of like it). Or you could stretch out the map a bit to make room. You would only need 2 squares in each direction.

Also, one more thing. The main choke is quite narrow, which mimics a ramp. However, you can wall it off with one building. This is hell on zerg used offensively, bunker for example. You should either widen the choke or make the narrow part of it unbuildable--indicate with rocks or something.

LunaSaint

United Kingdom620 Posts

April 30 2011 14:09 GMT

Woah, that was a load of feedback, thanks! Glad you like the feel of the map too.

Inverting the mineral arc was a great point, and you were right about the lack of attack paths. I've attempted to split it a little, causing the defender's army to funnel if they have to move to/from that forward base, but if it proves to not be enough, I'll take another look. There's still a decent amount of space I can extend those trees.

I'd rather not have to increase the size of the area, although admittedly that's because then mirroring terrain *again* and moving all the doodads, pathing and resources will take an eternity.

Anyway, update time! \o/

hobbidude

Canada171 Posts

April 30 2011 16:43 GMT

I really like the layout/concept design of this map but its still a little rough. Sad to say but straight edges in maps are not very appealing to the eye. Smoother more curved lines are better.

What I really dislike is how far the nat is to the main. Even as a toss player i know zerg will absolutely hate connecting the two bases cuz at max it should only take two tumors to completely connect them.
I would suggest move it much closer and swap the low ground between the two out for some highground or some sort of sight/path blockers, or put the main on the next cliff height up.

Peronally i don;t like how the thirds mins are rotated, not because its not backed by highground or another base, but becaues the curve makes it seems like its not your base. Need to at least rotate them 180

In the process of moving the nat closer to the main, move the ramp closer to the analyzer's thirds too and then maybe put rocks on a ramp leading to the fourth

LunaSaint

United Kingdom620 Posts

June 19 2011 14:01 GMT

Updated, will try to get a big testing session done after Dreamhack.

A liiiiittle worried I might have to make the entire map bigger for more space in the middle.

Might have to tighten the choke to make hellions less effective vs Zerg, we'll see.

ihasaKAROT

Netherlands4730 Posts

June 19 2011 14:08 GMT

@Luna, I think you gotta tone the protoss decals down a bit. Its too cluttered , then again, thats just my taste. Pretty much all the maps now have the hexpatterns, they are cute, but not as cute as they were. Theres a meme about them, thats usually a clue something wrong