|
Ithaca is a 4-spawn reflection symmetry map named after the Greek legend "The Odyssey by Homer, and the song The Odyssey by Symphony X (based on the same story). I had been wanting to return to the "overused" Jungle tileset for quite some time to shwo the community one of the many ways to take advantage of it and I finally found a map that I could fit onto it. Ithaca's concept spawns from a conversation iGrok and I were having about a Brood War map, (2) Odd-Eye. From there, I drew up a sketch and the map evolved to the point you see today. Ithaca is my first submission to the Map of the Month competition and my last 1v1 map I will be making for the forseeable future (more details on this to come).I'm back 
Features -Small bridge leading to close-by third expansion -Xel'Naga Tower in open area outside of natural expansion providing vision of the ramps leading to the center and gold -Gold expansion blocked by destructible rocks -Middle is relatively open with choked areas, choose battles wisely -Spacious, safe, easy to wall natural expansion (two ramps wide, like Shakuras Plateau) -Reaper/Colossus cliffwalk patio leading into main -Waterfalls and beaches! :D!!!
+ Show Spoiler [Features for Ithaca v1] +-Wide bridge leading to third expansion -Gold expansion blocked by destructible Xel’Naga Tower behind LOS Blockers (see below for images) -Middle is open with choke points throughout -Spacious, safe, easy to wall natural expansion (two ramps wide, like Shakuras Plateau) -Waterfalls and beaches! :D!!! Destructible Xel'Naga Towers+ Show Spoiler [Destructible Xel'Naga Towers] +
Changelog
Ithaca v2 Why: The Korean Weekly tournament showed a skewed result in PvZ (81.8% in favor of Zerg after ~15 games) and rather than waiting for a larger sample size I decided to take the initiative and make some changes which are as follows: -Third expansion closer to main and natural -Ramp to middle split into two 2x ramps -Xel'Naga Towers moved to open area outside of natural expansion -Middle slightly more choked -Bridge and ramp to third shrunk to two forcefields wide
For an in-depth analysis as to why these changes were made, tune into MapCraft: State of the Terrain Episode 4 on Sunday, Oct 23 6:30pm GMT (GMT+00:00) on ESV.TV!
Specs Map Size: 136x136 Expansions: 12 blue, 4 gold XNT: Four, outside of natural expansion Tileset: Custom - Uses elements from Aiur, Bel'Shir and Meinhoff
Closeup images You'll want to see these. + Show Spoiler [Closeup Images] + New and improved third expansion Xel'Naga Tower outside natural expansionWaterfall on eastern side of the map
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/erE7V.jpg)
Top-left main base
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y3W0L.jpg)
A broken wall, a crashed ship and a beach
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Dr4nb.jpg)
Waterfall and expansion on north end of the map
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YDElI.jpg)
The remainder of an old temple overlooking a beach below
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L1z1b.jpg)
Bottom-left main base & natural
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v1frX.jpg)
Bottom-right main base & natural
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yraDk.jpg)
Crumbling wall
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gxSbM.jpg)
Gold expansion & custom structure
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9IOQ8.jpg)
Center garden
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2hfjV.jpg)
Lightning guardian![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PVCub.jpg)
Map is published as "iCCup Ithaca"
Note from the author
This thread may raise some questions. First off, I am retiring from mapmaking, or at least going on "indefinite hiatus." I will explain my reasons at a later date and I make no reservations that I will not return in the future (HotS?). I have a few commitments that I need to tend to before I officially "retire" so this won't be the last you'll see of me by any means. Secondly, this map is not tagged "iCCup" because the mapmaking team is currently reviewing its procedures and protocols and making changes throughout. This map may be an iCCup map pending testing. Again, more information on this later. Finally, to talk about the map itself - this map probably siphoned 40-50 hours of my life over the course of the last 6 weeks and I'm glad to finally be able to present it just in time for MotM. Along with my retirement from mapmaking, I will be stepping down from judging so this map is my "go out with a bang." I wanted to show the community that any less than stellar aesthetics simply won't cut it anymore for Jungle tileset maps and I set out to put the bar reasonably high. I hope you all enjoy it!
I'm making maps again. I can't escape~
Shoutouts to iGrok for helping me spark this idea. GLHF in MotM, everyone! ;D
Follow me on Twitter!
|
I like this map. I feel that it has some new and interesting visuals... I like how you made some of the ramps look like stairs.
I think the overall structure and flow of the map is pretty good... The only concern would be that the rush distances might be a bit short.
The distructible towers seem a bit odd to me.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50121 Posts
kinda chokey don't you think.
Tank Imba :p
|
This map is pure gold, such an awesome map, very nice job prodiG!!
|
On May 08 2011 11:57 BLinD-RawR wrote: kinda chokey don't you think.
Tank Imba :p There's at least two different ways to get around just about anywhere but your nat. If you're having problems with tanks, adapt. That's what they do. 
On May 08 2011 11:49 Gfire wrote: I like this map. I feel that it has some new and interesting visuals... I like how you made some of the ramps look like stairs.
I think the overall structure and flow of the map is pretty good... The only concern would be that the rush distances might be a bit short.
The distructible towers seem a bit odd to me. The rush distance is comparable to Shattered Temple Cross positions (~27sec main ramp to ramp)
|
i dont like the straight tiles against the desert, but everything else looks great.
|
On May 08 2011 12:07 WniO wrote: i dont like the straight tiles against the desert, but everything else looks great. I'm not a fan of tiles and generally manmade stuff that fades into nothing, it doesn't really make sense to me. I wanted the tiles on the beach to look like they were over top of the rest of the terrain but there was still some sand and dirt blown overtop.
|
im sad to see u go.....u where like the leader of sc2 mapmaking (at least for me).
and for this time i dont know i like this map...i think the layout is good, a little bit cornered infront of the natural. besides that i dont like the texture at all, looks kinda ugly at the overview, dont know how it looks ingame.
anyways good luck in motm#5 and i would be glad to hear some information about the iccup mapmakingteam. (do u gonna continue without the leader?^^)
|
On May 08 2011 12:49 Mereel wrote: im sad to see u go.....u where like the leader of sc2 mapmaking (at least for me).
and for this time i dont know i like this map...i think the layout is good, a little bit cornered infront of the natural. besides that i dont like the texture at all, looks kinda ugly at the overview, dont know how it looks ingame.
anyways good luck in motm#5 and i would be glad to hear some information about the iccup mapmakingteam. (do u gonna continue without the leader?^^) I'll admit, the overview picture looks pretty nasty. It washes out a lot of the colors and sacrifices a ton of detail. I suggest you check out the closeup images 
The iCCup Mapmaking Team will continue to create maps and I will continue to be a involved in it at least in a limited regard.
|
On May 08 2011 12:55 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 12:49 Mereel wrote: im sad to see u go.....u where like the leader of sc2 mapmaking (at least for me).
and for this time i dont know i like this map...i think the layout is good, a little bit cornered infront of the natural. besides that i dont like the texture at all, looks kinda ugly at the overview, dont know how it looks ingame.
anyways good luck in motm#5 and i would be glad to hear some information about the iccup mapmakingteam. (do u gonna continue without the leader?^^) I'll admit, the overview picture looks pretty nasty. It washes out a lot of the colors and sacrifices a ton of detail. I suggest you check out the closeup images  The iCCup Mapmaking Team will continue to create maps and I will continue to be a involved in it at least in a limited regard. yeah overviews tend to do that ):
|
I'm sad to hear you're not going to be making maps for the foreseeable future. Your maps were some of my favorites. Good luck with everything!
|
how do u add steps to ramps???
|
On May 08 2011 13:48 TheREALRaRas wrote: how do u add steps to ramps???
Ground props doodad
|
Great map, a nice mix of title sets, I think. Getting a third on this map is going to be awkward on close spawns. You'd either have to expand really far away, right next to your enemy, or destroy your own tower. I'd much rather play a cross position game, otherwise contains at the golds in between your bases will be a pain in the ass. If you move out around it, they'll just destroy your natural, and if you push, well, at least you can move some of your army to the center and get a good flank. But then again, the tower overlooks past the LoSBs, so flanking will not go unnoticed.
These are just based on the overview image, I'm going to need some time to digest this map before giving a lot of feedback. I'm kind of unsure of how I feel about it right now.
|
On May 08 2011 11:37 prodiG wrote: Tileset: Custom - Uses elements from Aiur, Bel'Shir and Meinhoff How do you add multiple tilesets on a map?
|
On May 08 2011 15:09 iHexic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 11:37 prodiG wrote: Tileset: Custom - Uses elements from Aiur, Bel'Shir and Meinhoff How do you add multiple tilesets on a map? Data Editor
|
EPIC map! Was looking forward to this, and you guys don't disappoint 
This looks like it can be a very "standard" map; it's not too extreme in any aspect.
Thanks for making!
|
I THINK THE OPPS CAPS LOCKS i think the top left nat is alittle imbalalcne cuz banshees can hide in the high ground or air units can and the other nats they cat.
|
Very detailed map both aesthetically and strategically... I like it. Only thing I don't like is the overlapping beach-tileset at the third, but that can maybe be fixed.... Mech looks strong on this map, but that's not a bad thing.. (since I'm terran )
Too bad to see you leave, all my favourite custom maps were made by you...
|
On May 08 2011 15:42 TheREALRaRas wrote: I THINK THE OPPS CAPS LOCKS i think the top left nat is alittle imbalalcne cuz banshees can hide in the high ground or air units can and the other nats they cat. That high ground is out of bounds. Nothing can fly up there.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Texture job is to clean on this one to actually look good. I don't think that man made texture style works on naturalish maps. There are (as always in your maps) some very good ideas in it but this one just doesn't have the neat little kick your latest maps had.
|
On May 08 2011 17:48 dezi wrote: Texture job is to clean on this one to actually look good. I don't think that man made texture style works on naturalish maps. There are (as always in your maps) some very good ideas in it but this one just doesn't have the neat little kick your latest maps had.
I think its mostly a matter of opinion. I think tiles fading out looks better too, having hard edges looks good in-game.
|
Great map! Way to keep up the tradition of making me never want to enter a MotM because I know this is my competition. 
Haha, stop making such damn good maps!
|
On May 09 2011 00:18 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 17:48 dezi wrote: Texture job is to clean on this one to actually look good. I don't think that man made texture style works on naturalish maps. There are (as always in your maps) some very good ideas in it but this one just doesn't have the neat little kick your latest maps had. I think its mostly a matter of opinion. I think tiles fading out looks better too, having hard edges looks good in-game. The map was kind of aimed to look more manmade than natural, but kind of overrun by nature. Can't please 'em all, I guess ;D
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Don't get me wrong - the map is good but you've recently created some better maps (in my opinion :p).
|
United States10154 Posts
damn that looks beautiful 5/5
|
Sorry to disappoint you, my favorite aesthetical work by you is still God's Garden 
I definitely love the base layout tho and I think the destructible towers are in a nice place and add something special to the map.
|
On May 09 2011 06:57 Ragoo wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, my favorite aesthetical work by you is still God's Garden  I definitely love the base layout tho and I think the destructible towers are in a nice place and add something special to the map. heh, fair enough, I wanted to do something a little different from God's Garden here (was that the last jungle map I actually finished?)
|
ProdiG this is my favorite map from you. I hope to see it used in competitive play!
|
On May 08 2011 14:07 prodiG wrote:Ground props doodad  Well.. .. actually.. said doodads sort of have "fixed" areas/layout potential ... so, they in fact, draw themselves 
on topic: <3 the "proXelnaga", the tileset is Orcs and Humans pure nostalgia, so i'm sold  off topic: + Show Spoiler + the "off" topic: + Show Spoiler +Someone give this hero a medal before he vanishes in a regal twirl + Show Spoiler +the  is dead = LONG live the  and hope you still keep ALL your pencils sharp!
|
On May 09 2011 06:57 Ragoo wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, my favorite aesthetical work by you is still God's Garden  I definitely love the base layout tho and I think the destructible towers are in a nice place and add something special to the map.
Destiny's texture work still blows me away
|
Even though there is a destructible tower blocking it, I'm concerned that the Golds are easier to hold than the regular natural third. Especially given that it look like they're only 7 patches?
I'd make the third mid ground and the gold low ground.
|
On May 09 2011 09:29 Syphon8 wrote: Even though there is a destructible tower blocking it, I'm concerned that the Golds are easier to hold than the regular natural third. Especially given that it look like they're only 7 patches?
I'd make the third mid ground and the gold low ground.
That will change the map drastically as far as movement goes, look how the golds connect to the center with the LoSBs.
|
On May 09 2011 09:44 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 09:29 Syphon8 wrote: Even though there is a destructible tower blocking it, I'm concerned that the Golds are easier to hold than the regular natural third. Especially given that it look like they're only 7 patches?
I'd make the third mid ground and the gold low ground. That will change the map drastically as far as movement goes, look how the golds connect to the center with the LoSBs.
That can be replaced by a ramp with a LOS blocker at the bottom and will be exactly the same.
|
I disagree and like it much better this way. After some thinking, I've decided that this map is really good and well balanced! The aesthetics are very well too, especially the variation between the different sides of the map. Like, here you have a broken wall, but on this side you have trees, and on the other you have water and rocks, and I forget what the other one was. The variation in doodads, instead of just copying and pasting them four times, is much more pleasing aesthetically.
Great job prodiG!
|
Oh my god, from the first view, this map looks amazing. The the pathways, the technical gameplay options, the aesthetics - it blows my mind. I havn't that much time lately to play any games, but I will definately offer some time to test this map. Great job.
|
This map looks really solid and I can't see a lot wrong with it, but I do think it seems a bit generic. It feels like the same kind of layout most maps have.
It still looks good, it just doesn't jump out at me as something fresh and new. The visuals are also very nice though. Great work there.
Maybe a hiatus will do some good for ya!
|
On May 10 2011 04:35 Antares777 wrote:I disagree and like it much better this way. After some thinking, I've decided that this map is really good and well balanced! The aesthetics are very well too, especially the variation between the different sides of the map. Like, here you have a broken wall, but on this side you have trees, and on the other you have water and rocks, and I forget what the other one was. The variation in doodads, instead of just copying and pasting them four times, is much more pleasing aesthetically. Great job prodiG!  Finally someone picks up on the differences I put in 
On May 10 2011 03:55 Syphon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 09:44 Antares777 wrote:On May 09 2011 09:29 Syphon8 wrote: Even though there is a destructible tower blocking it, I'm concerned that the Golds are easier to hold than the regular natural third. Especially given that it look like they're only 7 patches?
I'd make the third mid ground and the gold low ground. That will change the map drastically as far as movement goes, look how the golds connect to the center with the LoSBs. That can be replaced by a ramp with a LOS blocker at the bottom and will be exactly the same.
|
This feels like your best work. Glad your going out with a bang please somehow get this into competitive play like you did with testbug.
|
This map looks very pretty The idea of destructible xelnaga is interesting o_O
|
At first sight this is another jungle map raped by protoss decals, but once you look closer the layout is really really interesting and visuals are stunning. It seems to me you took a map concept that wasn't really anything, something as "original" as a rotational symetry jungle map and nearly perfected it.
Sad to see you go(you will be back)
|
On May 10 2011 12:41 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 09:29 Syphon8 wrote: Even though there is a destructible tower blocking it, I'm concerned that the Golds are easier to hold than the regular natural third. Especially given that it look like they're only 7 patches?
I'd make the third mid ground and the gold low ground. Show nested quote +That will change the map drastically as far as movement goes, look how the golds connect to the center with the LoSBs. Show nested quote +That can be replaced by a ramp with a LOS blocker at the bottom and will be exactly the same. 
How won't it be? It's a passage that blocks vision.
As it stands Terran is very overpowered on this map.
|
Very beautiful map, I like it. Is there anyway to get this into SEA server? :D
|
"je suis venu te dire.. que je m'en vais... et que tes larmes n'y pourront rien changer..." lyrics by serge gainsbourg: i came here to tell you i'm leaving... and your gushing tears will not change a thing" + Show Spoiler +
|
THIS MAP BROKE MY CAPSLOCK BUTTON
But seriously, very nice map, can't wait till my biochem exam is over so I can try it out 
Perhaps this is a stupid question but being as this is the first I've seen of the destructible Xel'Nagas and cannot really test it right now, are the towers usable for spotting prior to being destroyed? I assume so with the probe there in the screenshot, and if so I rather like that thinking...giving up map control in order to gain resources. It makes the decision more than blindly destroying a heap of junk.
|
On May 11 2011 09:49 Chahta wrote:THIS MAP BROKE MY CAPSLOCK BUTTON But seriously, very nice map, can't wait till my biochem exam is over so I can try it out  Perhaps this is a stupid question but being as this is the first I've seen of the destructible Xel'Nagas and cannot really test it right now, are the towers usable for spotting prior to being destroyed? I assume so with the probe there in the screenshot, and if so I rather like that thinking...giving up map control in order to gain resources. It makes the decision more than blindly destroying a heap of junk.
Yes, the towers are like normal towers (usable for vision) except can be killed.
|
Map looks beautiful, you and LSPrime are definitely using the map maker impressively! Can't wait to see how good maps will look in a few months or years when the editor's full extent and potential are discovered! Really like the name too, The Odyssey was a beautiful book and movie!
|
|
Will zerg always destroy the tower closest to them before taking the third?
At least in TvZ I figure .. how else defend against tanks from that gold/tower platform? I think it's allright that the towers are more powerfull than on other maps simply beacuse of the fact that they're destructible .. perhaps that goes without saying,m but it came as a revelation to me 
Also, the small high grounds on the map, are they pathable? cliff-walkable and tank-dropable? The lack of doodads inclines they are. I tried somethgin liekt hat before and ppl shouted tank heaven. However, I can't tell if that's simply what ppl think or what is an absolute truth. Has this changed, do you think? I mean, small high ground dots like that, would still take a lot for T or P to make contains using those? It should be much less of an issue compared to Lost Temple, for instance?
|
On May 11 2011 20:42 Meltage wrote:Will zerg always destroy the tower closest to them before taking the third? At least in TvZ I figure .. how else defend against tanks from that gold/tower platform? I think it's allright that the towers are more powerfull than on other maps simply beacuse of the fact that they're destructible .. perhaps that goes without saying,m but it came as a revelation to me  Also, the small high grounds on the map, are they pathable? cliff-walkable and tank-dropable? The lack of doodads inclines they are. I tried somethgin liekt hat before and ppl shouted tank heaven. However, I can't tell if that's simply what ppl think or what is an absolute truth. Has this changed, do you think? I mean, small high ground dots like that, would still take a lot for T or P to make contains using those? It should be much less of an issue compared to Lost Temple, for instance? If there's no doodads on it, it's pathable. In other words, the platforms on the lowground outside of your nat, above the gold, and in the center of the map can be cliffwalked and dropped on. The third expansion (beach) has a cliff behind it so that it can be harassed by air easier. I did that to counterbalance the fact that none of the bases on the map had pathable cliffs overlooking the expansions themselves and would be a little easier to defend as such.
As for the towers, it depends on many factors. Spawn positions, your army composition relative to his/hers, what expansion path you'd like to take relative to his/hers, creep spread, etc. The map has multiple paths to get around, and a Terran player trying to camp the gold with the tower still can only control those two expansions and the nearest lane in the middle. You'll still have the option to circumvent that by moving through the choked center or around it and attempting to backstab or surround the army and attack it from multiple angles. I wanted the map to focus heavily on strategic play that uses positioning and more to take an advantage, rather than winning by running giant balls of units into each other and seeing who has better micro and army composition. (SC2 is seriously one of the most boring games when the matches devolve into that, so if you're one of those guys who tries to max on roach hydra and attack move into someone who's got good positioning and is playing to the map well, don't cry imba. Adapt.)
|
I liked this map when i played it, just one criticizm. when attacking into the natural against a terran player, the fact the natural ramp is so constricted and covered by the main makes it a little too strong. maybe conside rmoving the ramp a bit further from the high ground and widening it a little maybe? Or you could just recede the high ground so it's not as close. seige tanks just ensure 2 base terran without any issues. Either way, the natural ramp needs to be widened slightly, otherwise the choke it creates is a little extreme.
Outside of that, i really liked the flow of the center parts of the map.
|
On May 13 2011 02:19 BluePanther wrote: I liked this map when i played it, just one criticizm. when attacking into the natural against a terran player, the fact the natural ramp is so constricted and covered by the main makes it a little too strong. maybe conside rmoving the ramp a bit further from the high ground and widening it a little maybe? Or you could just recede the high ground so it's not as close. seige tanks just ensure 2 base terran without any issues. Either way, the natural ramp needs to be widened slightly, otherwise the choke it creates is a little extreme.
Outside of that, i really liked the flow of the center parts of the map. I'll be sure to keep this in mind, thanks for the feedback. I'll definitely consider pulling the main back a bit
|
I think that this map may be better than your other map Valhalla.
|
On May 13 2011 08:14 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 02:19 BluePanther wrote: I liked this map when i played it, just one criticizm. when attacking into the natural against a terran player, the fact the natural ramp is so constricted and covered by the main makes it a little too strong. maybe conside rmoving the ramp a bit further from the high ground and widening it a little maybe? Or you could just recede the high ground so it's not as close. seige tanks just ensure 2 base terran without any issues. Either way, the natural ramp needs to be widened slightly, otherwise the choke it creates is a little extreme.
Outside of that, i really liked the flow of the center parts of the map. I'll be sure to keep this in mind, thanks for the feedback. I'll definitely consider pulling the main back a bit Actually, i think extending the natural might be a better choice after thinking about it. There is already not that much space in the main. As long as you can keep it unsnipeable.
|
This map is garbage, the towers are almost useless...
|
On May 13 2011 14:28 DataMiner wrote: This map is garbage, the towers are almost useless... Care to elaborate instead of spewing out the first useless comment that comes to mind?
The towers are designed so that they only provide an advantage in certain situations. Playstyles & strategies that incorporate it will be able to tap into that resource and use it to its full potential, both offensively and defensively. If you're just running units across the map trying to kill your oppoenent off, the towers may not do you much good. If you're playing a strategic macrooriented game, then the towers can make or break the game.
|
Lol whoops I completely missed that the towers need to be destroyed for the gold to be taken, stupid post by me >_<.
Well then as a different note I think the center could do with an indestructible xel'naga watchtower. Just to add more purpose to having some map control in the center which I would think most of the time players would otherwise avoid as it would put them out of position for counter attacks.
|
On May 13 2011 15:05 DminusTerran wrote: Well then as a different note I think the center could do with an indestructible xel'naga watchtower. Just to add more purpose to having some map control in the center which I would think most of the time players would otherwise avoid as it would put them out of position for counter attacks.
I think that five towers on one map, destructible or not, is a bit ridiculous. The center one could be blocked, like the ones on Testbug. That might be ok, but I honestly like the map with just four destructible towers.
|
On May 13 2011 19:38 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 15:05 DminusTerran wrote: Well then as a different note I think the center could do with an indestructible xel'naga watchtower. Just to add more purpose to having some map control in the center which I would think most of the time players would otherwise avoid as it would put them out of position for counter attacks. I think that five towers on one map, destructible or not, is a bit ridiculous. The center one could be blocked, like the ones on Testbug. That might be ok, but I honestly like the map with just four destructible towers. This is exactly the thought process I had. I experimented with a tower in the center and I felt the map became too straight-forward with a tower in the center, regardless if it was blocked or destructible.
|
u here = me <3
also
On May 11 2011 09:49 Chahta wrote:THIS MAP BROKE MY CAPSLOCK BUTTON + Show Spoiler +But seriously, very nice map, can't wait till my biochem exam is over so I can try it out  Perhaps this is a stupid question but being as this is the first I've seen of the destructible Xel'Nagas and cannot really test it right now, are the towers usable for spotting prior to being destroyed? I assume so with the probe there in the screenshot, and if so I rather like that thinking...giving up map control in order to gain resources. It makes the decision more than blindly destroying a heap of junk. not a stupid q, we all sympathize (waiting is rrr) and i agree "heaps of junk" are so "beta"
|
Also rotational symmetry should be avoided for obvious reasons...
|
Fancy! You crammed a lot of fun stuff into this map. The destructible watch towers are probably my favorite feature. Aside from that, everything looks pretty standard.
What I think could use some changing is the center. I wish there were more reason to be there besides walking across the map. It does look for a nice place for big battles though.
|
On May 14 2011 02:31 DataMiner wrote: Also rotational symmetry should be avoided for obvious reasons...
On May 13 2011 14:28 DataMiner wrote: This map is garbage, the towers are almost useless...
Troll?
|
This map looks so sexy! Really really awesome looking map, in a cartoonish kinda way
|
On May 14 2011 07:59 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 02:31 DataMiner wrote: Also rotational symmetry should be avoided for obvious reasons... Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 14:28 DataMiner wrote: This map is garbage, the towers are almost useless... Troll? Either troll or incredibly uninformed person who knows very little about maps/mapping.
|
Beautiful, this map looks like better than Bel' Shir Beach, and more balanced as well. You inspire me to use the Galaxy Editor lol, keep up the good work!
On May 14 2011 02:31 DataMiner wrote: Also rotational symmetry should be avoided for obvious reasons... I am fine with that, he is new to TeamLiquid, like most people he will learn after his first temp/perma ban.
|
|
Upload to EU someone
|
pm author and pray
|
very very interesting destructible tower hmmm
|
blizz will do this on HoS
|
On May 14 2011 09:41 KOVU wrote:Upload to EU someone  Soon(tm)
On May 14 2011 08:30 Varpulis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2011 07:59 Antares777 wrote:On May 14 2011 02:31 DataMiner wrote: Also rotational symmetry should be avoided for obvious reasons... On May 13 2011 14:28 DataMiner wrote: This map is garbage, the towers are almost useless... Troll? Either troll or incredibly uninformed person who knows very little about maps/mapping. One way or another, I'm not going to pay attention to him.
|
Wow, this map is so good looking that if it was a girl then I would be to afraid to talk to it O_O
I am just now making my first map and it has inspired me to try harder.
Edit: one thing i love is the tile to beach that makes it look weathered or like dusted with sand.
|
On May 14 2011 12:51 Carmine wrote: Wow, this map is so good looking that if it was a girl then I would be to afraid to talk to it O_O
I am just now making my first map and it has inspired me to try harder.
Edit: one thing i love is the tile to beach that makes it look weathered or like dusted with sand. That is hands down the best thing I've ever heard
|
|
Friend and I played the map and possibly found a bug? Creep tumors appeared to be visible without detection.
|
On May 18 2011 09:42 kcdzim wrote: Friend and I played the map and possibly found a bug? Creep tumors appeared to be visible without detection.
It's a glitch that has been coming up occasionally. It seems to happen randomly because of a patch 1.3.3 glitch... we'll fix it as soon as we can!
|
Impressive work! It really looks amazing.
I can't wait to try this
|
On May 18 2011 10:16 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2011 09:42 kcdzim wrote: Friend and I played the map and possibly found a bug? Creep tumors appeared to be visible without detection. It's a glitch that has been coming up occasionally. It seems to happen randomly because of a patch 1.3.3 glitch... we'll fix it as soon as we can! Oh crap, I fixed this and sent the file to MotM but I guess I never published it. The latest version published as iCCup Ithaca should not have the bug.
|
@prodiG/Monitor - this glitch, is it somethign that occurs to every map that weas saved before the patch.. or? How to avoid? Thanks
What's your thought on rotational symetry imbalances? To clarify, on this map, in close positions, one player will have it's third close to the opponent, while the other will have it away (and will have nat much closer by air).
Also, I must ask, since I've got conflicting information .. expanding away and towards your opponent, what makes those decisions? First I thought that was simply a matter of being offensive or defensive as a player in the current match, but now I wonder if it's more of a matchup issue? I've heard that Z wants to expand away from opponent ... but why? As Z I rather expand towards, so that I can get creep spread closer to the opponent bases.
Just to say something on topic ... I also want the map on EU. With the motm tag is fine 
|
On May 18 2011 18:47 Meltage wrote:@prodiG/Monitor - this glitch, is it somethign that occurs to every map that weas saved before the patch.. or? How to avoid? Thanks What's your thought on rotational symetry imbalances? To clarify, on this map, in close positions, one player will have it's third close to the opponent, while the other will have it away (and will have nat much closer by air). Also, I must ask, since I've got conflicting information .. expanding away and towards your opponent, what makes those decisions? First I thought that was simply a matter of being offensive or defensive as a player in the current match, but now I wonder if it's more of a matchup issue? I've heard that Z wants to expand away from opponent ... but why? As Z I rather expand towards, so that I can get creep spread closer to the opponent bases. Just to say something on topic ... I also want the map on EU. With the motm tag is fine  I don't know what causes the glitch but it may be due to the fact that the map has campaign dependencies for additional doodads.
As for rotational symmertry imbalances, the map still leaves you with plenty of options. I can't think of a scenario where someone would lose because they had to expand elsewhere on the map instead of their pre-designated third. The gold expansion and lowground third are both close enough that in either close position taking either one will not be the difference between a win or a loss.
Rotational symmetry maps have been around forever and they're not going anywhere. As long as the map is designed well, the imbalances are not going to ruin games (and when someone says they do, I wouldn't be surprised when they can't show me a dozen replays showing the problem instead of games filled with huge mistakes. That said if they can, I'd be happy to look more into it.)
Your expansion path is very stylistic. If you're an aggressive Zerg player who wants to be able to clear the map quickly to keep the pressure on so your opponent stays in the corner, then maybe expanding towards your opponent is the right choice. Sometimes the game will flow in a way that you simply cannot expand towards your opponent safely and you'll have to expand away in order to keep up in the macro game. There's no super-textbook answer to that question, I think - but if you find something that works, stick to it.
I'll get the map up on EU shortly~
|
Been playing this map quite a bit, really really like it. Still have the gripe about the nat ramp, but it's one of the best maps out there, period.
|
On May 20 2011 04:36 BluePanther wrote: Been playing this map quite a bit, really really like it. Still have the gripe about the nat ramp, but it's one of the best maps out there, period. Ithaca 1.1 is now up on EU & NA
Changes: -Some superfluous doodads removed & repositioned to slightly improve performance on some systems -Main base pulled a little bit away from the natural expansion's ramp -Small texture changes/improvements -Pathing fixes -Creep tumor bug fixed
|
Is it intentional that there are not "steps" for an early reaperscout? I don't know exactly about the pros and cons but I always thought about it as something positive, cause early scouting = less random game.
|
On July 05 2011 20:11 Ragoo wrote: Is it intentional that there are not "steps" for an early reaperscout? I don't know exactly about the pros and cons but I always thought about it as something positive, cause early scouting = less random game. It is intentional. I wanted the main base, natural and space outside to function very similar to Shakuras Plateau. Reapers still can sneak in although they'll have to show up a bit earlier.
|
On July 05 2011 23:27 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 20:11 Ragoo wrote: Is it intentional that there are not "steps" for an early reaperscout? I don't know exactly about the pros and cons but I always thought about it as something positive, cause early scouting = less random game. It is intentional. I wanted the main base, natural and space outside to function very similar to Shakuras Plateau. Reapers still can sneak in although they'll have to show up a bit earlier. But on Shakuras reapers can also get into the main via the (former) backdoor, where as I don't think that's possible on Ithaca, seems it's only accessible via the natural, assuming the platform with all the trees is completely unpathable. I don't think this is a big concern though.. just being pedantic.
|
Thinking about it every map that's competitively nowadays has a front and back entrance for reapers. Maybe the only exception is Crevasse but it's not that important cause Crevasse has an inbase expo anyway, so I guess you don't need that much scouting like you normally would with reaper FE. So I would totally make that small change and add steps for reapers so that players can use their standard reaper FE opening. Unless of course you have a very good reason that you don't want it.
|
On July 06 2011 20:10 Ragoo wrote: Thinking about it every map that's competitively nowadays has a front and back entrance for reapers. Maybe the only exception is Crevasse but it's not that important cause Crevasse has an inbase expo anyway, so I guess you don't need that much scouting like you normally would with reaper FE. So I would totally make that small change and add steps for reapers so that players can use their standard reaper FE opening. Unless of course you have a very good reason that you don't want it. I suppose it couldn't hurt. I can't think of a strong reason not to include them so long as I can make them not take up too much space, which shouldn't be a problem.
|
Ithaca has been updated!
Ithaca by prodiG v2
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q9hFZ.jpg) Click to enlarge
Click here to see top-down view
Features -Small bridge leading to close-by third expansion -Xel'Naga Tower in open area outside of natural expansion providing vision of the ramps leading to the center and gold -Gold expansion blocked by destructible rocks -Middle is relatively open with choked areas, choose battles wisely -Spacious, safe, easy to wall natural expansion (two ramps wide, like Shakuras Plateau) -Reaper/Colossus cliffwalk patio leading into main -Waterfalls and beaches! :D!!!
Ithaca v2 Why: The Korean Weekly tournament showed a skewed result in PvZ (81.8% in favor of Zerg after ~15 games) and rather than waiting for a larger sample size I decided to take the initiative and make some changes which are as follows: -Third expansion closer to main and natural -Ramp to middle split into two 2x ramps -Xel'Naga Towers moved to open area outside of natural expansion -Middle slightly more choked -Bridge and ramp to third shrunk to two forcefields wide
For an in-depth analysis as to why these changes were made, tune into MapCraft: State of the Terrain Episode 4 on Sunday, Oct 23 6:30pm GMT (GMT+00:00) on ESV.TV!
|
your Country52797 Posts
I heard you're going back into mapmaking.
|
Sad to see the destructible towers go, on the other hand now you can submit this to the TL contest.
I like the changes, I always thought the third was too far away for Protoss so I'm very happy that changed!
|
United States10154 Posts
holy shit soooo sexy. happy to see you back, we need more maps from your prodiG!
|
nvm
+ Show Spoiler +Anyway, I think that the changes you implemented are a great start but I feel that there's more that could be done to fix potential imbalances. With the gold expansions acting as alternate thirds, blocking them with rocks (or destructible towers) makes sense, but not on a 4 player rotational map. Due to spawns, Zerg can sometimes be forced to expand towards his opponent instead of away from them if they do a fast expanding build. With the water creeping very close to the third as well, there's no room on that side to hide some units so that when the enemy walks down the ramp into the third he only has to fight one direction, decreasing the chances of surrounds and flanks to defend that area. Without analyzer images, it's a little bit difficult for me to be able to tell the exact bounds of the Xel'naga Towers, but right now, I think they help the attacking player get a contain rather than the defending player. Since it's right up against the cliff, controlling it will be difficult unless you control the center of the map (which in most cases means you are the attacking player). An attacking player will have an easier time denying the defending player from his own Xel'naga Tower, making pushes into the natural easier. Particularly Protoss will have a large advantage. The Colossus can see directly over the cliff blocking sight to the Xe'naga Tower from the center of the map, and can walk up and down the cliffs in the middle. This gives Protoss a large advantage when it comes to map control. Also, outside the natural, you have a high ground obstruction that with the combination of force fields can greatly harm the other races. I can see that it's overall size was shrunk, but I strongly feel that it should be shrunk more, or possibly removed. On top of this, the addition of the Xel'naga Towers caused the decrease in ramp size. Moving a large army to attack the middle is now quite difficult. And the side paths aren't much better in terms of choke width. The ramps to the natural are still 2x wide and a Protoss player can easily fast expand. This map was used on the Korean Weekly, and I didn't watch any of those games, so I could be misguided with some of my thoughts. I'm just having difficulty in seeing how your changes made the map less Protoss favored to the extent needed for balance. I'd like to suggest a few things: Increasing the size of the intended third outward into the water more would allow easier flanks when an attacking force comes down the ramp from the gold. Altering the area outside the natural, whether it be remove/shrink the obstruction, or remove the line of sight blockers to make a third more difficult for Protoss to expand/defend. Moving the Xel'naga Towers and adding the large ramps back would be a good idea in my honest opinion, but I wouldn't know what to do with the Xel'naga Towers after that. The only thing I could think of regarding that would be to put just one in the middle, but that is uncreative and probably imbalanced with the chokes already in existence in the center. Maybe if you place a Xel'naga Tower there, you could pull the obstructions towards it so that one touches each corner and creates 4 mini paths that access the tower, but are blocked by it as well (not a through path). That would create more room in the center because the obstructions would be less spread out and closer to the center of the map. I hope you find my feedback useful, and good luck in the competition!  Oh, I almost forgot your welcome back present! + Show Spoiler +
|
I knew Protoss was too strong on this map ever since I watched the MOTM tournament (I think it was MOTM6) and saw a Sentry heavy Protoss force annihilate an enemy Zerg army using force fields right outside the natural because of the high ground chunk right there.
It was 81.8% in favor of Zerg, not Protoss  The map is designed to have a very safe natural expansion but if you lose control of the space outside of your natural you're in a LOT of trouble.
|
Those changes look very good.
|
On October 19 2011 07:23 prodiG wrote:It was 81.8% in favor of Zerg, not Protoss 
O_O
I'm going to go crawl under my rock now.
|
Has the map been tested since you introduced the new version? I would love to see how such relatively 'minor' changes effect game balance.
|
This map looks great, and feels great, but the Protoss decals look very out of place with the general stone & water approach that you have.
|
On October 19 2011 07:55 Chargelot wrote: Has the map been tested since you introduced the new version? I would love to see how such relatively 'minor' changes effect game balance. Being played right now on Korean Weekly, ForGG (the BW progamer!!!!!!!) vs Tassadar
www.esvtv.com
|
On October 19 2011 08:19 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 07:55 Chargelot wrote: Has the map been tested since you introduced the new version? I would love to see how such relatively 'minor' changes effect game balance. Being played right now on Korean Weekly, ForGG (the BW progamer!!!!!!!) vs Tassadar www.esvtv.com
Indeed, these games will definitely show whether the small changes will affect balance. And I can tell you that they will change it (most likely correct the imbalance to be closer to 50-50).
|
I just saw ForGG get a Mule stuck on the Korean Weekly. Topleft Natural, Mule launched from main. You should fix that asap. Other than that, i'm liking the map. Good job!
|
On October 19 2011 08:36 NunedQ wrote: I just saw ForGG get a Mule stuck on the Korean Weekly. Topleft Natural, Mule launched from main. You should fix that asap. Other than that, i'm liking the map. Good job! Wow, what a find. Just cracked it open and there is indeed a problem with this base. I can't believe I missed this!
EDIT: this is a *HUGE* editor bug. i am floored. writeup incoming~
|
your Country52797 Posts
2 nats have 7 mineral fields, 2 nats have 8. O_o edit: thirds might have same problem, can not tell w/o analyzer.
|
On October 19 2011 09:17 TehTemplar wrote: 2 nats have 7 mineral fields, 2 nats have 8. O_o
That is also probably a problem :D
|
On October 19 2011 09:22 NunedQ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 09:17 TehTemplar wrote: 2 nats have 7 mineral fields, 2 nats have 8. O_o That is also probably a problem :D Thas has been fixed in the latest version as well, thanks for pointing everything out. I don't know how I missed some of these things, although the mule was interesting
In editor: (Note where the blue map border is)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wk8pV.jpg)
(Doodads behind the minerals are set to allow walking through them0
In Game (note how close I can get to where the map border should be)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UTG8v.jpg)
Map border works in increments of 2 despite letting you change the values in increments of one. FML
|
Just push the boder one more square. I did it with testbug
|
On October 19 2011 19:09 Superouman wrote: Just push the boder one more square. I did it with testbug yeah but then i have to fill the entire outer edge with pathing blockers
if you look at those screenshots, if i push the edge out one more tile then you can walk inside of the wall on that top left main. it's an easy fix but what a lame bug :<
|
I've noticed when watching the ESV Korean weekly that the gas geysers aren't symmetrical from each other. I'm note sure to what extend this may effect the gameplay and the gas mining though. But maybe you should look into it. I'm not even sure if the extra tile even matters though, does the map analyzer still tell you the optimal amount of resources gained or something?
|
Great map... wish this was included in the ladder! TvZ I just watched gave me light BWesque shudders.
|
On October 25 2011 05:55 EffectS wrote: I've noticed when watching the ESV Korean weekly that the gas geysers aren't symmetrical from each other. I'm note sure to what extend this may effect the gameplay and the gas mining though. But maybe you should look into it. I'm not even sure if the extra tile even matters though, does the map analyzer still tell you the optimal amount of resources gained or something? This is fixed in the latest version I believe
|
Question: is it intended for tanks/blink stalkers to be able to utilize the water area behind the third-base area?
|
|
It's not a bug...
It's the second coming of our lord and savior and you almost missed it!
|
I've figured out the issue and fixed it:
The problem stemmed from the way doodads and more specifically their footprints interact within pathing. It's blatantly obvious that it's pretty broken in SC2, so here's what I did to circumvent it.
1) Remove all 1x1, 2x2 pathing blocker doodads, etc 2) Select all doodads in the area you want to be unpathable 3) Press enter, check the "Don't use doodad footprint" checkbox. This removes the doodad from being able to interact with the pathing layer 4) Press H to go to the pathing layer and apply the red unpathable paint to all of the areas you want to have be unpathable.
Image (Note the red message on the side)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OeVib.jpg)
Map is updated on NA with other servers very soon to follow.
|
Yeah pathing is very strange. It is set at map load and the spawning of the doodads will overwrite your painted pathing. Huh? =\
|
|
|
|