"Generic map comment here!"
version 0.3 EU

Skov is my first four player map with three kinds of distances to the enemy place depending on where you spawn. (1v1) Else I can say I had great enjoyment creating this map, and as I hope, you'll have aswell when playing this map.

Map details:

Skov is a 160x162 playable map.
2 watch towers cover the open middle part of the map
Map contains 12 naturals (incl. main), zero gold expansions.
Many trees.

Update log:

~03
Fixed various cliff issues
added/fixed some detail
~0.2
Fixed placement issues
added/fixed some detail
~0.1
Map release

Screenshots
+ Show Spoiler +

Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +

Southern base + nearby naturals:
+ Show Spoiler +

Detail shots!
+ Show Spoiler +

Analyzer data
+ Show Spoiler +

Summary
+ Show Spoiler +

Distances
Note! Cliff walker unit distances, main to main are incorrect!
+ Show Spoiler +

Game on

FoxyMayhem

624 Posts

August 05 2011 21:59 GMT

I like it. Nice. I think it might work better with the middle-ish 10 and 5 o-clock bases being on tier 2, though, otherwise it appears quite difficult to take that as your third. What do you think?

TheMody

3 Posts

August 05 2011 23:27 GMT

I realy lik the Map design it looks great. I would suggest that the middle expansions are gold instead of normal mineral patches.

StateSC2

Korea (South)621 Posts

August 05 2011 23:38 GMT

Really great map! Just be sure to remove close air (if you haven't already) and add some more detail to the textures before you release it.

Some other suggestions: Maybe have the 10/5 expansions on t3 (highground), and the central 2/8 expansions on t1 (lowground) as golds. I think it would make more entertaining gameplay.

Fearlezz

Croatia176 Posts

August 06 2011 02:23 GMT

On August 06 2011 08:38 State wrote:
Really great map! Just be sure to remove close air (if you haven't already) and add some more detail to the textures before you release it.

Why should close air be removed? I don't get it. Because the close air nat-to-nat distance is even longer than if you spawn on the same half.

Tbh I can't wait for when mappers figure out how to make maps so no position has to be disabled, but lobbying to disable seemingly random spawns that you don't like at the first sight should be definitively ignored imo.

LawrenceVern

Canada37 Posts

August 06 2011 02:34 GMT

it seems to me this is a better version of abyssal caverns. They're VERY similar. Also, I love the texturing and the details you put into the side. I know it must've took you forever. The only thing that I think could be improved on is the large amount of chokes. Lategame FFs from protoss will be very powerful.

TheAmazombie

United States3714 Posts

August 06 2011 02:42 GMT

On August 06 2011 11:34 LawrenceVern wrote:
it seems to me this is a better version of abyssal caverns. They're VERY similar. Also, I love the texturing and the details you put into the side. I know it must've took you forever. The only thing that I think could be improved on is the large amount of chokes. Lategame FFs from protoss will be very powerful.

This. Overall, great detail and textures. I like the design quite a bit, but the large amount of choke points could be an issue.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

August 06 2011 03:06 GMT

You may need to redesign the center areas to be less friendly to lategame protoss + forcefield, as mentioned above.

This is a really nice design except for the one fault which is so hard to deal with in reflection-symmetric 4player maps: the nat to nat distance in adjacent spawns is far too close. In this case it's actually in either adjacent direction. TvZ will be unfair, if the last year of map adjustments is any indication.

I don't know if there's a way to preserve the core of the layout and fix this. I'm sure it'll give some fun games anyway.

The nat to nat distances should be one of your top considerations in a design like this. I see you noted the variable distances for the 3 spawn setups, so I don't really need to tell you this. I suppose you may have a different opinion about minimum rush distance, which is okay, but you'll run into a lot of opposition, not least from players.

I don't usually suggest spawn limitations because I would prefer that be a holistic intention from the start of a design, but... I have to say this would be a fun "corners only" map.

My suggestion to adjust for more space would be to make the ramps facing middle from the XWT about twice as wide.

Ferisii

Denmark199 Posts

August 06 2011 21:07 GMT

Oh boy, lots of feedback... Here we go!

@FoxyMayhem
What can I say? I like experimenting with my maps.

On a serious note, why I made those naturals easy to access was that, incase players spawned far away from eachother, I would have their prefered 3rd less easy to defend.

@TheMody
I played around with the idea to make the 2 middle naturals into gold bases, but decided in the end not to, cause of issues it might could have if players spawned close. Say now one player manage to lock down one gold, then the other player had to go a long way around to acquire one aswell.

@State
As of now, I have no plans to relocate the main bases for removing the close air position.
What do you exactly mean with adding more detail to textures (and where? :p). It's somewhat tricky to make grassy textures more detailed. Regarding the naturals, check above answer.

@LawrenceVern
Hah, didn't know that my map would resemble Abyssal Caverns that much. :D
Regarding chokes, I presume we're talking about the ramps. I thought of that yes, but I'm thinking that the sizes of the ramps, including how easy it is to walk around a locked ramp, would make up for it.

@EatThePath
What exactly is this imbalance regarding the adjacent naturals? About ramps, I'm thinking they're huge enough as of now, but could change.

Thank you all for leaving your feedback for my map!