|
Relaxation.
4 Player Melee Map
Fully Symmetrical
An Tropical Map set on a space platform.
Who wants to fight crowds when you can relax in space, on your own Paradise Platform?
Well it turns out on Paradise Platform, instead of fighting the crowds for a good spot, you are going to be fighting for your life. MWAHAHAHHA. (lol jk)
Gold expo's in the middle, 1 rich vespene geyser at each. Xel Naga watch tower in the middle, surrounded by LoS blockers.
Relative easy to take and protect 2nd and 3rd, as well as plenty of spots for a macro game in 1v1.
FFA and 2v2 also possible.
My first ever MotM submission. I liked the premise more than my delivery on my idea... but its still a cool map imo. After fighting with customizing the terran set, I would like to trade out the white for a more realistic sand, but o well. This space platform was aiming for perfection i guess when it came to the sand.
I like the concept, and think i did a fair enough delivery of it, so enjoy.
Newest Version:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kUdkN.jpg)
2nd Update:
+ Show Spoiler +
Old Layout from before.
+ Show Spoiler +
will include analyzer pics later. Enjoy
**OPINIONS WANTED *
Should i leave the mains the way they are in the newest Version, or would people prefer something that looks more like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jISsU.jpg)
Wanted to get some opinions be4 i go through with texturing/placing
|
your Country52798 Posts
Pretty, but forces 3 base play in every way.
|
It is a lot like Terminus in the design, and I did want a 3rd that every race could take and defend.
I tend to make my maps the way I like to play: favoring a multi base macro game.
|
your Country52798 Posts
Well, It's almost impossible to take a fourth base...
|
Maybe if you are playing 1v1v1v1.
I dont understand why you believe that at all. Wont be any more difficult then other large maps like tal darim and terminus etc
|
your Country52798 Posts
I disagree.
Tal'darim alter has a much closer fourth than this map.
And terminus had huge three base turtling problems.
|
At first glance it looks like Belshir Beach, (sorry if I spelled it wrong) in a different format. Looking at it is kind of soothing.
Definitely pretty much impossible for a 4th.
|
Map is changed Significantly, after playing on it myself.
Will edit OP to show the old and new versions
|
Is it possible for siege tanks by the gold to shell the third below? That could be a problem
|
Aesthetically, I really like the idea of a beach map on a space platform. Good concept!
I'll let more experienced forum members dissect this map's playability and balance.
|
United States10524 Posts
4th will be very difficult. this map screams 3 base all day.
but it looks good i like the concept.
|
And then I don't even like the 3rd, it seems pretty siegable from the high ground.
And I feel that there are some imbalances because of the clockwise symmetry.
|
Major Update Again, and i have one more layout I wanna try out and throw out for opinions after this one. Will update OP again with newest layout pic
Newest Layout:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
That looks a LOT better. A viable but exposed third, a viable but more exposed fourth, I like it a lot. The only thing is, the center golds still feel like "winner expansions", if you know what I mean?
|
Ya well they are definately for the player who is currently controlling the map. No lie there.
But my reasoning is Golds are supposed to be incredibly hard to take. I dont like maps where taking an early gold is viable, I would rather they be VERY risky to take, thats why they are gold after all.
One thing i do really like is the fact that either the 4th or 3rd is viable as a 3rd depending on ur enemie's race/spawn location. And u can either take the open 4th as ur 3rd and expand to the 3rd of the base clockwise from u, or ur can turn ur 3rd into a 4th, or take ur 4th on gold.
Gives players a lot of options i feel on their expo choices.
The center area is still pretty large, which i feel might even make taking the gold fairly easy as long as you are prepared to take it.
|
The golds are so close you can mine more than one of them at once from one base. Really cool map. I hate to suggest it, but rocks on the third wouldn't actually be terrible.
|
On September 07 2011 06:20 Gentso wrote:
The golds are so close you can mine more than one of them at once from one base. Really cool map. I hate to suggest it, but rocks on the third wouldn't actually be terrible.
I hate putting rocks on the third because it screws over zerg a lot of the time. Like u see a LOt on Tal Darim... but what i think I am going to do is put rocks on the back ramp so that when u take it u have to go to the front ramp until u break down those rocks. might put rocks on 2nd ramp for nat also havent decided.
thanks for input =)
|
Hmmm, I think I like the current style of third over the idea you have.
I can't say I agree with Gentso, those bases aren't as close as they look.
The style of map is really cool and relaxing.
One thing I will say is that people will complain they they think there are cliffs in places there aren't because of the dip in height (speaking from experience -.-). It might be smart to smooth out those ramps into the water to make it gentler and clearer.
|
I think the third looks good, but maybe those rocks would be good as well (on the ramp, not the cc/nex/hatch placement). I would have to see games on it to know. My inclination is to say you had it right first without the rocks.
I wanted to mention the golds a bit more: do you remember Jungle Basin? The expos in the middle were "easier" to take than what those golds look like, and yet, they were almost impossible for any race but terran to hold. I'm afraid this will be even worse.
And you mention they're supposed to be hard to take, so hard it's likely only one player in a 1v1 will be able to take it. So then, why are there four? Is one player supposed to claim more than 1 gold base with their advantage? Excluding the terran issue, is the goal of the map to turn a smaller advantage into an absolutely insurmountable advantage (by placing 4 golds at the feet of the player with the initial advantage)? If so, why do you think this is a good thing?
I'm not trying to give you a breakdown before MotM9, bro, just sharing my concerns in hopes it will help. I really do like the aesthetics and where it is going, cool stuff man. <3
|
On September 07 2011 14:07 FoxyMayhem wrote:
I think the third looks good, but maybe those rocks would be good as well (on the ramp, not the cc/nex/hatch placement). I would have to see games on it to know. My inclination is to say you had it right first without the rocks.
I wanted to mention the golds a bit more: do you remember Jungle Basin? The expos in the middle were "easier" to take than what those golds look like, and yet, they were almost impossible for any race but terran to hold. I'm afraid this will be even worse.
And you mention they're supposed to be hard to take, so hard it's likely only one player in a 1v1 will be able to take it. So then, why are there four? Is one player supposed to claim more than 1 gold base with their advantage? Excluding the terran issue, is the goal of the map to turn a smaller advantage into an absolutely insurmountable advantage (by placing 4 golds at the feet of the player with the initial advantage)? If so, why do you think this is a good thing?
I'm not trying to give you a breakdown before MotM9, bro, just sharing my concerns in hopes it will help. I really do like the aesthetics and where it is going, cool stuff man. <3
Thanks for looking and giving input.
I felt like putting 4 golds in the middle because in my current "philosophy" on maps, every position should be as equal as the others in ever sense.
If I was going to put in 1 gold patch, it was either going to be ONLY one patch, that everyone fights over. OR there was going to be one for each spawn, so that there is no spawn in which a player can say "OMG He only won because he spawned on the side with the closer gold! he has an easier defense there!"
In my opinion, you should NEVER put players in a position where their spawning position affects their mindset on the game they are currently engaged in.
When Zerg gets Lost Temple in Close Positions he automically id DRASTICALLY on tilt in most cases. It completely changes their approach and mindset for that game, and map makers should not be hurting players just because they got a bad straw when it came to drawing them.
Also just to comment on that, the middle is actually quite large, and deceivably so. That middle island takes up a LARGE amount of space, and in far positions I can see it possible to hold one while an enemy holds on, similiar to a situation on Xel Naga... but idk. Mostly it was just a "balance it out" sort of thing
|
I like it a lot. it's pretty easy for 4 base play. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out with pros.
|
On September 07 2011 15:28 Proko wrote:
I like it a lot. it's pretty easy for 4 base play. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out with pros.
Thanks =)!
I try to play it out mentally every time i create an aspect of the map, to try to think about how every placement will affect gameplay.
Glad you like it.
|
I like this layout alot more already, 4 bases are pretty possible now.
Regarding the layout, I don't know, the proposed change would favor turtling pretty much, but it does look good..
The current layout feels like antiga when your rocks at your third have been destroyed, I think many people don't like that.
|
... This is Antiga Shipyard with a different middle, right?^^
I don't like those middle bases, only one player can take one of them at the same time, Imo they are a bit useless. Imho Antiga would be good without any middle bases^^
|
I felt like putting 4 golds in the middle because in my current "philosophy" on maps, every position should be as equal as the others in ever sense... Okay, fair enough. But wouldn't two bases set at a diagonal accomplish a similar withing, while reducing half of the concerns I outlined?
In my opinion, you should NEVER put players in a position where their spawning position affects their mindset on the game they are currently engaged in. I can't agree or disagree, to be honest. I think the sentiment is awesome for some thing, and yet, so much of broodwar was played on maps that were just like that. If you ever heard Day9's description of what it was like to play on the original Lost Temple, it's hilarious and awesome. So I don't know what to think about that, except that Imba positions are lame. But I don't think different = imba.
Still, it's not hurting anyone if you stick to that philosophy, so more power to ya! I know I've only ever made mirror maps, so it's not like I know what I'm talking about when advocating for asymmetry. And mirroring is a good way to keep balance more consistent/manageable.
Lol at rambling >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RF6DG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/glJpY.jpg)
