hey guys, i made a new map. pretty standard stuff. layout work is mostly mine with small fixes from lefix. textures mostly from lefix with fixes from me. doodad work mostly from me with help from lefix, funcmode and johanaz. The Layout is Influenced by Grand Line SE. It doesnt really look like that anymore but the middle highground is still there. I chose MarSara Tileset because it really easy on the eye and has a clear lightning for every race.
Samro and lefix are responsible for the questionable rock decision. (i want to point that out^^)
The only thing I don't like is the way the watchtowers work. They provide vision of every attack path and thus are a too useful tool for mapcontrol. There should be paths outside of their vision range. Maybe move them a bit closer to the middle of the map?
This is amazing. It's like Bardiche but the contrast between openness and chokes is a lot more standard and acceptable. You can split the map in whichever direction you chose because of the options for a third. I'm looking forward for some great games going down on this!
My only problem is I see a 3rd being far too hard to take for protoss especially and even terran a bit (until they get a pfort up). No matter which one you take you'll have to spread yourself out pretty thin. It'll also be really rough because there are so many flanking paths.
Very nice. I like a lot, especially how the map can be split very nicely either way a player expands to his third.
Right now I think it is possible as others have said that the third base spreads Protoss out too far in PvZ. The distance is quite long- longer than most Blizzard maps. But it's not any longer than a lot of competitive maps like TalDarim and Crossfire. I think testing is needed to determine any imbalance.
I definitely think the rocks seem unnecessary at the fourth. It is pretty easy to defend already; removing the rocks would allow for more harass. If it is too hard to hold, I think it it could be moved a little bit closer to the highground third. Or you could rework it to be a "dead-end" expansion which would work nicely here.
In general I agree to a certain extent with Barrin's conclusion that this lacks the fun-factor, but not any more than a lot of other maps...
However I really disagree with his theoretical analysis of the 3rds, at least for PvZ. I would take the against-main 3rd 90% of the time. Why? You get a tower. You can park your army equidistant between nat choke and 3rd, while strongarming tower control with your nearby army. This feels so much safer than going ccw, lacking a tower, having to wall, and still feeling pulled between two locations (like Tal Darim x10). Additionally, taking the against-main 3rd sets you up for a much nicer 4th, almost automatic once the game gets to that point.
In light of this, the map seems like a top vs bottom game once you get beyond 15 minutes / 2base. This leaves the 5th base at the equator on either side sort of dangling. (It might have been a 3rd but that tower is so desirable personally I doubt it will be used that way very often in "standard" games.) Which way do those 5th bases get split up once the map is top vs bottom? Imo, this makes the map prone to a late game expansion / production facility base trade dynamic.
Compare to Tal Darim (for a different reason than before). That map can also see pretty harsh expo trades, but thats because players arent good enough to control space well like, say, on fighting spirit in BW. The map can be split cleanly in two different directions (4 player rotational hmmm) and as long as both players stay on top of their shit, you aren't forced into ugly counterattacks whenever the opposition pushes you, which I feel like is inevitable once someone is taking a 5th here. This is a style choice though, to be clear I'm not condemning at all. ^^
On September 20 2011 16:49 Barrin wrote: That all actually ties into this: I'm not really a fan of how so many bases in SC2 maps are so incredibly rounded! What I mean is that they're often kind of like peninsulas with air space on sorta 3 different sides (or a lot on 2 sides). And the minerals are like 2-4 spaces from the edge (the roundness of the terrain is there almost exclusively to wrap around the minerals like this). And each base past the main has very little room in it past the room for minerals and the CC (granted you do want to carefully place the CC spot in relation to the chokes of the base for the purposes of PF's, creep, and defend-harassment distance from choke). WE NEED TO STOP MAKING EVERY BASE LIKE THIS! Yes, in general just barely most bases should be roughly like this; but it's possible to get so much more creative with individual base structure.
quoted for truth!
On September 20 2011 12:58 monitor wrote: I definitely think the rocks seem unnecessary at the fourth. It is pretty easy to defend already; removing the rocks would allow for more harass. If it is too hard to hold, I think it it could be moved a little bit closer to the highground third. Or you could rework it to be a "dead-end" expansion which would work nicely here.
i understand that there is an anti-symathy against rocks and i would say leave them out whereever you can. you could leave them away here easily. it is safe enough as you state. for me it is not about defensive here, but taking down the rocks as an attacker. to have the extra path, to be able to harass, to take the bridge base as a fourth. the ccw fourth is quite a bit further away. so i think the rocks here are a good decision.
rocks that are not only in your way, but open up new path that are optional are something positiv in my opinion and hopefully entertaining. we need an emancipation movement for rocks really
On September 21 2011 02:22 Barrin wrote: I agree that the end game bases are too close to each other (creating the "winner's expansions" effect). To be blunt be a little more like Odyssey ^^ + Show Spoiler +
4-player format (more expansions) would help this a lot on this map IMO.
i think ody is the wrong example here. i understand that your last base should be in reasonable distance. i remember when this was discussed regarding lefix's map back then. but ody is a strict one-expansion-pattern map, while iron allows expansion in both directions. something i like alot, but it creates difficulties with the last base, sure. possibly you would go in one direction and then swing back to the other to get your last base. also your expansions (in general) could be used to force the other player to take another fifth than he wanted first (something i have seen on cascade).
4player format is an interesting decision. could you elaborate on how you wopuld do this?
On September 20 2011 12:58 monitor wrote: I definitely think the rocks seem unnecessary at the fourth. It is pretty easy to defend already; removing the rocks would allow for more harass. If it is too hard to hold, I think it it could be moved a little bit closer to the highground third. Or you could rework it to be a "dead-end" expansion which would work nicely here.
i understand that there is an anti-symathy against rocks and i would say leave them out whereever you can. you could leave them away here easily. it is safe enough as you state. for me it is not about defensive here, but taking down the rocks as an attacker. to have the extra path, to be able to harass, to take the bridge base as a fourth. the ccw fourth is quite a bit further away. so i think the rocks here are a good decision.
rocks that are not only in your way, but open up new path that are optional are something positiv in my opinion and hopefully entertaining. we need an emancipation movement for rocks really
I don't really think I agree about the rocks. In this situation, adding rocks in the fashion you stated is a "bandaid" fix for something potentially flawed in my opinion.
On this map, the fourth is almost easier to defend than the third. This is definitely not a great gameplay factor because somebody who has gotten ahead by securing their third earlier gets an even farther lead because of an easy fourth. For example in a hypothetical TvZ, if a three base terran takes out the Zerg's third, they can expand to a fourth easier than the Zerg can re-expand to the third. This makes it so even if the person behind plays much better, he can't necessarily win because the map rewards the player already ahead.
Additionally, encourage harass and attacks is always something good for a map. Turtling up and just sitting is not good gameplay (Terminus is less extreme, but a somewhat good example). The rocks are really just a nuisance to take down when you are trying to harass, infact they almost stop zergling runbys competely. I would encourage army movement instead of nullifying it.
Just simply alter it. Balance can always be attained in any map with just slight modifications- the real problem is getting the gameplay to be good. In this circumstance, I would probably put 6x6 debris blocking half the choke so that it is still easily defended, but harass can still be used. If you want to engage, breaking the rocks won't be a big problem for a large army.
On September 20 2011 12:58 monitor wrote: I definitely think the rocks seem unnecessary at the fourth. It is pretty easy to defend already; removing the rocks would allow for more harass. If it is too hard to hold, I think it it could be moved a little bit closer to the highground third. Or you could rework it to be a "dead-end" expansion which would work nicely here.
i understand that there is an anti-symathy against rocks and i would say leave them out whereever you can. you could leave them away here easily. it is safe enough as you state. for me it is not about defensive here, but taking down the rocks as an attacker. to have the extra path, to be able to harass, to take the bridge base as a fourth. the ccw fourth is quite a bit further away. so i think the rocks here are a good decision.
rocks that are not only in your way, but open up new path that are optional are something positiv in my opinion and hopefully entertaining. we need an emancipation movement for rocks really
I don't really think I agree about the rocks. In this situation, adding rocks in the fashion you stated is a "bandaid" fix for something potentially flawed in my opinion.
On this map, the fourth is almost easier to defend than the third. This is definitely not a great gameplay factor because somebody who has gotten ahead by securing their third earlier gets an even farther lead because of an easy fourth. For example in a hypothetical TvZ, if a three base terran takes out the Zerg's third, they can expand to a fourth easier than the Zerg can re-expand to the third. This makes it so even if the person behind plays much better, he can't necessarily win because the map rewards the player already ahead.
Additionally, encourage harass and attacks is always something good for a map. Turtling up and just sitting is not good gameplay (Terminus is less extreme, but a somewhat good example). The rocks are really just a nuisance to take down when you are trying to harass, infact they almost stop zergling runbys competely. I would encourage army movement instead of nullifying it.
Just simply alter it. Balance can always be attained in any map with just slight modifications- the real problem is getting the gameplay to be good. In this circumstance, I would probably put 6x6 debris blocking half the choke so that it is still easily defended, but harass can still be used. If you want to engage, breaking the rocks won't be a big problem for a large army.
Great post monitor.
Me: "About rocks... are there rocks on this map lol?? In the pictures I'm seeing in the OP there are none and I was basing my thoughts on that. OH THERE ARE ROCKS."
I was looking at the analyzer pics, I thought they were hypothetical in Barrin's picture. >.>
Anyway, imo neither 3rd is that much harder to take than any currently common maps for PvZ. In the current PvZ metagame you generally end up putting up a number of cannons at all bases outside your main and nat, and the way that you need to fight infestors requires adequate space. So, I don't find the space around the cw 3rd to be scary at all, nor the high ground, because you wouldn't engage up there anyway. The reason I personally don't like going ccw is because of exactly what you said about towers, Barrin. They can be used against you. And it's much harder to control the tower up there. However, if it's a game where I'd be comfortable going blind or relying on an observer while I put up the 3rd, then it wouldn't really matter.
Even with a walloff, the ccw 3rd can be attacked by a squad of roaches or whatnot (at the wall) while the main zerg army threatens to push your natural. To fend off a side-attack like that, you need colossus behind the wall or you have to meet the roaches around the other side, or let them break in and hold them there. At the cw 3rd, you don't have this problem of a split path to defend your 3rd, it's just a line with an intersection in the middle (where you park your army).
Regarding the watchtower above the cw 3rd, if they zerg takes it while they're pushing, you know they've committed their army there which is all you need to know to defend your 3rd. Having it is only important to know when and where a push is coming, and they won't be able to take it away from you unless they bring their whole army... which is what the tower is meant to tell you. Otherwise you're on standby with your army at the intersection to meet them if they come ccw.
However with these rocks! It seems either choice is fine depending on what stage of the game you want to be more of a hurdle, and personal preference.
If the ccw 3rd was made into a deadend base per monitor's early post in this thread, it would set the expansion pattern but not the order of where you go when, that would be pretty cool.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OJ0xm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/387_Grand%20Line%20SE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4NrFsl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dHl8hl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zc2Xnl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X9Yqdl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ud4Pzl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JjFkFl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LQsl7l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RQflgl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rS0oZl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OKLwRl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c1FDUl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8eWPcl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8l903.jpg)
