|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7htq6.jpg)
Void Rift
4 player map designed for 1v1
148x162 playable bounds.
14 bases total.
4 center expos have either high yield minerals or high yield gas.
Overview+ Show Spoiler +
Angled+ Show Spoiler +
Introduction: + Show Spoiler +After putting together this black Typhon/Shakuras tileset I´ve spent ages trying to put together a good layout. I practically finished 3 different maps using rotational symmetry, but I was never satisfied. Either there was to many positional imbalances or they were too much like Terminus/Crevasse/Tal´Darim.
I finally gave up rotational symmetry altogether and went for Twisted Symmetry™.
Twisted symmetry is a combination of rotational symmetry, mirror symmetry and shift symmetry (as on Shakuras Plateau). The shift forced a lot of open space behind 2 and 8 o' clock bases so I rotated the mineral lines to sit near the map bounds.
I have measures out distances using probes travelling from main ramps to key locations.
Tileset: custom + Show Spoiler +
Analyzer:+ Show Spoiler +
More pics & info:+ Show Spoiler +I have implemented the revisions suggested by monitor and others (see thread below) as well as a lot of polishing and refinement to the textures. As loveablemikey suggested I used the textures to distinguish the different cliff levels more clearly. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CIzRN.jpg) 2 o´clock main & surroundings. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8P2gk.jpg) Natural Terran wall-off (11 units). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zs95M.jpg) -added bridge with LoS blockers next to central high ground. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S9qMC.jpg) -added 2 extra ramps @ gold expos. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BNWeJ.jpg) Added LoS ring around watchtowers.
My Map Thread
|
I like the map layout a lot, but the darkness makes it feel really depressing.
|
Frikkin Sweet
Love the texture work as well. Great combination.
Also I love the layout.
Only one thing, it looks like 3rd might be a bit far away, and gold seems to be relatively close and with no rox. So would not gold almost always be the better/easier choice? despite the defensiveness of the 3rd?
If that was your intention then I still like it, a boost to econ from the gold early on might launch the game into more intense play, and they would also be an obvious point of contention.
Though I still think that maybe the gold should have rox.
One more thing, can the golds mineral line be hit from behind or blunk to? Only because the gold is already pretty open from the front, maybe it might be a little to vulnerable? (EDIT) especially as they have low yield gas.
Other than that I am loving this map. And it feels a little different from most other maps.
|
Wow that symmetry is cool! The only concern I have is that its really tight. A lot of the space here (especially close positions) will be impossible for Zerg because of all the chokes. I think you should definitely open up some of the areas, especially around the High yield and the expos above/below it (12 and 6oclock).
-Probably just remove the High yield expos and add two more ramps coming down from the highground there.
-Remove the natural ramp with rocks, its just annoying in most positions. Then move the unblocked ramp back a bit, to make the ground distance = air distance in vertical positions.
-Add another path through the middle, because its really choked right now. Planetary fortresses will dominate pretty much everywhere on this map, so giving an extra run-by area will help.
Other than that, pretty clever design and nice aesthetics. Looking forward to some games!
|
That's a really cool looking map, I love the spawns.
Personally I have no real experience using the map editor, but I love the textures and the way this map aesthetically looks.
I also like the way that which third base you take is dependent upon where your opponent spawns, which obviously is true with any 3/4 spawn map, but I think it's especially true on this map.
Great job.
|
can this map be played 2v2 TvB? cause that would be boss.
|
Thanks everyone! 
On May 09 2011 00:02 monitor wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Wow that symmetry is cool! The only concern I have is that its really tight. A lot of the space here (especially close positions) will be impossible for Zerg because of all the chokes. I think you should definitely open up some of the areas, especially around the High yield and the expos above/below it (12 and 6oclock).
-Probably just remove the High yield expos and add two more ramps coming down from the highground there.
-Remove the natural ramp with rocks, its just annoying in most positions. Then move the unblocked ramp back a bit, to make the ground distance = air distance in vertical positions.
-Add another path through the middle, because its really choked right now. Planetary fortresses will dominate pretty much everywhere on this map, so giving an extra run-by area will help.
Other than that, pretty clever design and nice aesthetics. Looking forward to some games!
Alas, I already submitted the map to MotM thinking the deadline was dangerously close 
I don´t what it is about my maps that make them look much tighter in the full map view than they really are. I´m pretty sure this map is as open as most ladder maps.
My main concern is when spawning 2 o´clock vs 5 o´clock Zerg will have some trouble establishing the far away 3rd and the blocked natural back door. I put it there to enable players to open up an additional route as well as enable a closer 3rd when spawning 5 o´clock vs 8 o´clock or cross, without having too short distance when spawning 2 o´clock vs 5 o´clock.
The gold is super vulnerable (siegeable+blinkable), but if you can secure the high ground behind, then it´s pretty strong with the help of the watchtower.
|
On May 09 2011 01:01 WniO wrote:
can this map be played 2v2 TvB? cause that would be boss.
This map can be played 2v2  , however I have not set it up to be TvB (yet).
|
There will still be issues though- planetary fortresses will dominate late game; forcefields will destroy zerg armies in the tight paths; static defense will be impossible to engage. I made a drawing of how I would change it:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EQfOD.jpg)
[edit] The problem with my drawing is that close positions will be hard to take thirds. I don't really know a solution, because adding another ramp makes vertical positions too close. Maybe just move the ramp closer to the lowground third?
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Sweet  I like the Shakuras style shifted layout.
|
Thanks for taking the time to sketch up alternatives
1 to 1 comparison with Xel´Naga Caverns: + Show Spoiler +
My map lacks that big open battlezone outside the XNC naturals, but just about everywhere else is more spacious. It is 148x162 after all, which is quite huge.
I will try and set up some more testgames and try some variations as you suggested. That said, I still think the awkward layout makes the map look much more cramped than it actually is in game.
The map is up on EU. Anyone feel free to chime in with opinions please send me replays, preferably ZvX. Thanks!
|
On May 09 2011 04:24 Johanaz wrote:Thanks for taking the time to sketch up alternatives 1 to 1 comparison with Xel´Naga Caverns: + Show Spoiler +My map lacks that big open battlezone outside the XNC naturals, but just about everywhere else is more spacious. It is 148x162 after all, which is quite huge. I will try and set up some more testgames and try some variations as you suggested. That said, I still think the awkward layout makes the map look much more cramped than it actually is in game. The map is up on EU. Anyone feel free to chime in with opinions please send me replays, preferably ZvX. Thanks!
The open space is not the issue I'm mainly talking about. Say you walk behind the gold. There's only one path you can go on; this is extremely bad for flow. Not to mention, it will encourage counter attacks.
Xel'Naga Caverns flows all over the place, its got tons of pathways. There are key chokes which make it balanced, but no long corridors.
The third on your map is too controlled and choked off in its pathway. The suggestsed change of adding ramps would really help the flow of the map, and give Zerg a healthy chance on the map in close positions.
|
On May 09 2011 04:35 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 04:24 Johanaz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Thanks for taking the time to sketch up alternatives 1 to 1 comparison with Xel´Naga Caverns: + Show Spoiler +My map lacks that big open battlezone outside the XNC naturals, but just about everywhere else is more spacious. It is 148x162 after all, which is quite huge. I will try and set up some more testgames and try some variations as you suggested. That said, I still think the awkward layout makes the map look much more cramped than it actually is in game. The map is up on EU. Anyone feel free to chime in with opinions please send me replays, preferably ZvX. Thanks! The open space is not the issue I'm mainly talking about. Say you walk behind the gold. There's only one path you can go on; this is extremely bad for flow. Not to mention, it will encourage counter attacks. Xel'Naga Caverns flows all over the place, its got tons of pathways. There are key chokes which make it balanced, but no long corridors. The third on your map is too controlled and choked off in its pathway. The suggestsed change of adding ramps would really help the flow of the map, and give Zerg a healthy chance on the map in close positions.
Now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up!
|
I was working on a map with symmetry like this but I couldn't get it to come out to my liking. I'm really glad you did, though, Johanaz! I think this is the future of (4).
Looks freaking sexy. Apart from the tweaking monitor suggests, I can't find fault with it. I mean, I'm biased 'cause I like the style, but still. ;D
|
I have done 2 versions of the map with the changes suggested by monitor:
Version 1:+ Show Spoiler + Version 2:+ Show Spoiler +
Version 1 is close to what monitor suggested except I did not move the gold to replace 3rd base.
Version 2 is identical to my original layout but with 2 ramps added by the gold in order to open up the long path to the 3rds. Also, I removed 1 gas at the gold and one mineral patch at the side expos.
As both versions address the problem with the long path I´d like to know which revision you guys prefer.
Here´s a poll if you want to share your opinion:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: What version do you prefer?Version 1 (monitors sketch). (2) 100% Old version was fine. (0) 0% Version 2 (hybrid). (0) 0% 2 total votes Your vote: What version do you prefer? (Vote): Old version was fine.
(Vote): Version 1 (monitors sketch).
(Vote): Version 2 (hybrid).
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Both concepts have their flaws.
|
On May 11 2011 19:39 dezi wrote:
Both concepts have their flaws.
He he dezi. Right in tune with your recent dry comments style But, please elaborate.
|
No wonder I couldn't tell from the ingame perspective if this was rotational symetry or not Twisted .. it reminds me of Ashen Sands in the sense that the top bases are different alrhough mirrored to the bottom 2. This concept is more balanced than what I attempted, of course. I like how you get the good part from rotational and mirrored symetry both - small differences depending on spawn overall and two different games depending on which close position spawn.
From the version 1, I like that you added paths in teh middle gaps, as monitor suggested. I dislike that one can tank the high vespene from the natural. I liked the rock between nat and that expo.
In ver2, I like that path by the third (top/bottom middle expo) on low ground, however less is probably more in this case, so version 1 is better as it makes the map a bit smaller and more straight forward, although the ramps should be wider for Z to get some love passing through.
You shoudl post your threads BEFORE motm submission so that you can do this tweaking at an earlier stage  I bet you had Mud Rock being tested and tweaked a while before motm 1.
I wasn't a big fan of the texturing ingame. I do liek the mix of textures, but I would add more contrast to the outer edges and inner valleys ... I udnerstand it's clean with not too many colors but brown is dull
|
On May 11 2011 20:22 Meltage wrote:You shoudl post your threads BEFORE motm submission so that you can do this tweaking at an earlier stage I bet you had Mud Rock being tested and tweaked a while before motm 1.
Truth! Let this be a lesson to all who forget to post the layout before doing too much polishing.
Thanks for your comments.
|
variant in centre reminds me of my map Kassad which was to un-original for a great score in the last motm because it was too much like your map mudrock
more serious: i think the ramps could be a bit wider considering how many you use. same concerns like monitor (static defensive games, weak zerg around ramps and chokes)
i really love the overall concept of symmetry though
|
OK, now we´re confused... monitor pointed out a few legitimate issues. I cursed myself for not posting the layout earlier, and just submitting the map.
I wonder if the judges found the map to have good gameplay as is, or chose it pending the proposed revisions?
Regardless, I had a lot of fun testgames prior to submitting it, perhaps the judges had that too. Sometimes flawed is better than perfect, but that also takes a good amount of luck.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On May 11 2011 19:17 Johanaz wrote:I have done 2 versions of the map with the changes suggested by monitor: Version 1: + Show Spoiler + Version 2: + Show Spoiler +Version 1 is close to what monitor suggested except I did not move the gold to replace 3rd base. Version 2 is identical to my original layout but with 2 ramps added by the gold in order to open up the long path to the 3rds. Also, I removed 1 gas at the gold and one mineral patch at the side expos. As both versions address the problem with the long path I´d like to know which revision you guys prefer. Here´s a poll if you want to share your opinion: + Show Spoiler +Poll: What version do you prefer?Version 1 (monitors sketch). (2) 100% Old version was fine. (0) 0% Version 2 (hybrid). (0) 0% 2 total votes Your vote: What version do you prefer? (Vote): Old version was fine.
(Vote): Version 1 (monitors sketch).
(Vote): Version 2 (hybrid).
Version 1
I miss the additional path removed above the HY. As T when both players start top i would alway expand towards my opponent (only 1 attack path to the 3rd there and i can also shell the HY if needed or guard it from there and nothing you can do against it.
Version 2
Here i miss the additional path top / bottom.
So i would mix it up like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OghZR.jpg)
Expanding toward your opponent on top is a bit harder because you need to cover a lot more area to be save and top bottom has an additional (and already open) path. I also used those ramps next to the HY because it think that's a really good idea from monitor.
|
On May 13 2011 20:13 dezi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2011 19:17 Johanaz wrote:I have done 2 versions of the map with the changes suggested by monitor: Version 1: + Show Spoiler + Version 2: + Show Spoiler +Version 1 is close to what monitor suggested except I did not move the gold to replace 3rd base. Version 2 is identical to my original layout but with 2 ramps added by the gold in order to open up the long path to the 3rds. Also, I removed 1 gas at the gold and one mineral patch at the side expos. As both versions address the problem with the long path I´d like to know which revision you guys prefer. Here´s a poll if you want to share your opinion: + Show Spoiler +Poll: What version do you prefer?Version 1 (monitors sketch). (2) 100% Old version was fine. (0) 0% Version 2 (hybrid). (0) 0% 2 total votes Your vote: What version do you prefer? (Vote): Old version was fine.
(Vote): Version 1 (monitors sketch).
(Vote): Version 2 (hybrid).
Version 1 I miss the additional path removed above the HY. As T when both players start top i would alway expand towards my opponent (only 1 attack path to the 3rd there and i can also shell the HY if needed or guard it from there and nothing you can do against it. Version 2 Here i miss the additional path top / bottom. So i would mix it up like this: Expanding toward your opponent on top is a bit harder because you need to cover a lot more area to be save and top bottom has an additional (and already open) path. I also used those ramps next to the HY because it think that's a really good idea from monitor.
Thanks dezi
I think you´ve sketched up a great compromise. I will make it happen ASAP.
|
Super cool map! I can't say there is a single thing I don't like about it.
I looked at it a little more and I wish the terrain levels were textured differently. The map becomes a big warm grey blob. The overview does, at least. Maybe in game it looks fine.
I like it!
|
On May 13 2011 21:33 Johanaz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 20:13 dezi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2011 19:17 Johanaz wrote:I have done 2 versions of the map with the changes suggested by monitor: Version 1: + Show Spoiler + Version 2: + Show Spoiler +Version 1 is close to what monitor suggested except I did not move the gold to replace 3rd base. Version 2 is identical to my original layout but with 2 ramps added by the gold in order to open up the long path to the 3rds. Also, I removed 1 gas at the gold and one mineral patch at the side expos. As both versions address the problem with the long path I´d like to know which revision you guys prefer. Here´s a poll if you want to share your opinion: + Show Spoiler +Poll: What version do you prefer?Version 1 (monitors sketch). (2) 100% Old version was fine. (0) 0% Version 2 (hybrid). (0) 0% 2 total votes Your vote: What version do you prefer? (Vote): Old version was fine.
(Vote): Version 1 (monitors sketch).
(Vote): Version 2 (hybrid).
Version 1 I miss the additional path removed above the HY. As T when both players start top i would alway expand towards my opponent (only 1 attack path to the 3rd there and i can also shell the HY if needed or guard it from there and nothing you can do against it. Version 2 Here i miss the additional path top / bottom. So i would mix it up like this: Expanding toward your opponent on top is a bit harder because you need to cover a lot more area to be save and top bottom has an additional (and already open) path. I also used those ramps next to the HY because it think that's a really good idea from monitor. Thanks dezi I think you´ve sketched up a great compromise. I will make it happen ASAP.
I still think its necessary to remove the rocked natural entrance, because it makes vertical positions too close natural to natural when you break the rocks.
|
Ok guys, thanks a lot for all your feedback. I have implemented the suggested changes:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9xZVk.jpg) -removed natural backdoor -added ramps beside the golds -open an additional passage through center
Also updated & added more pics & info to OP.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Why did you made that passage close to the high ground mid that kinda small?
|
On May 17 2011 19:24 dezi wrote:
Why did you made that passage close to the high ground mid that kinda small?
It´s the most direct route when spawning top vs bottom (same side), and it´s not covered by the Watchtowers, so I thought it would be best if it was too narrow for a huge army to rush through.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I think you should test a bigger version of that passage (with no gap to the middle high ground).
|
@Johanaz you saying it screws up rush distance top vs bottom close pos? Narrowing the path won't solve that you know, just ensure that those paths are not used by bigger units/armies.
I can't help but feel that somethgin essential was lost when you removed the nat rocks. The reason is not the nat itself but rather that the HY vespene bases are so cut off from the main path. In top vs bottom you would in 9 cases out of 10 go through the middle. Those rocked paths simply opened up the map so much more for top vs bottom. I kow it breaks top vs bottom nat distance, but ... what if you move the ramps pointing towards the middle closer to the nat and HY gas expos some? Put it right above and below the gaps in the centre?
|
even though this is my fav now out of the top five i think zvt close positions (tvb) would be a nightmare if terran does a slow push through the rocks.
|
Wooow, looks so sick ! Very dark but very well designed.
|
On May 17 2011 19:21 Johanaz wrote:Ok guys, thanks a lot for all your feedback. I have implemented the suggested changes: + Show Spoiler +-removed natural backdoor -added ramps beside the golds -open an additional passage through center Also updated & added more pics & info to OP.
I like the high yield area a lot more. I feel like the natural ramp is a bit awkward moving around the map, since its so close to the opponent. I think to fix this, you should bring it inwards toward the natural a bit, so its closer to the low ground third.
If you want to add rocks back, I guess you could disable the vertical positions.
|
I like the high yield area a lot more. I feel like the natural ramp is a bit awkward moving around the map, since its so close to the opponent. I think to fix this, you should bring it inwards toward the natural a bit, so its closer to the low ground third.
This was exactly what I meant, but monitor explained it better
Also, the low ground third is still HY vespene gas? I think it makes sense since the other third is easier to defend... but exactly HOW good is HY vespene gas? Is it like having a 3 gas base (but with less workers) .. someone shoudl do the math.
|
On May 19 2011 03:46 Meltage wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I like the high yield area a lot more. I feel like the natural ramp is a bit awkward moving around the map, since its so close to the opponent. I think to fix this, you should bring it inwards toward the natural a bit, so its closer to the low ground third. This was exactly what I meant, but monitor explained it better Also, the low ground third is still HY vespene gas? I think it makes sense since the other third is easier to defend... but exactly HOW good is HY vespene gas? Is it like having a 3 gas base (but with less workers) .. someone shoudl do the math.
Thanks for the input. I will move the ramps closer to the natural, so the distance will be shorter to the low ground thirds. I have closed the gap between the new paths and the central high ground.
HY vespene works like HY minerals, that is, they allow workers to hold 6 gas units per trip. That is in effect like a 3 gas expo, except that each geyser still holds 2500 units.
About testing:+ Show Spoiler +Last night I hosted a test game, a TvP 11 o´clock vs 2 o´clock where P expanded to 8 o´clock nat & main and T just floated an OC to low ground 3rd. The players felt the map was pretty well balanced off a first glance and that the expos were distributed well compared to their defendability. ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Picon_small.png) Joe played Terran as he likes to off-race against lower ranked friends, when testing my maps. Needless to say it is unbelieveably awesome to have Europes 38th ranked player as an occational test pilot, but still as he puts it: this is not high level, it´s just fun. Until you get progamers to test your map 100+ games you can´t know everything. The best you can do is take advice from more experienced mappers here ^^.
|
I completed the changes.
Overview+ Show Spoiler +
Angled+ Show Spoiler +
The MotM judges will use the original version, but with cross spawns only.
I submitted this latest revised version as well, in case they change their minds
Thank you all for your great ideas!
|
top notch map. don't think i have any more crits to add
|
It seems to be a little difficult to take a third. Maybe just move the ramps a little to shorten the distance to the third base? Otherwise, great map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nirur.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HkZJ3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QReGA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fxexu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kqA3k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9SDs3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/df4qI.jpg)
