|
Edit1: (10/15/11) Added Zerg creep connection pictures and Protoss Forge Fast Expand pictures.
OP updated.
@ greggy -- You know, I like "Cloverfield" in that it is a great reference (also, the clover shape the dark face regions make) and I'm sure somewhat fitting but I didn't see it. =X I know, lame, right?
@ Hassybaby -- I misread this one before, but once I understood what you were saying I literally lol'ed. I think I'd have to shower with my clothes on in *that* bathroom! Ain't the hot water give'n me shivers, if ya know what I mean. 
---------------------------------------------------
@ TehTemplar -- Now that I've updated the OP, just briefly my thoughts on some of those other points of consideration about the map and how it plays/conforms to the norm/etc.
Fast Expansions -- see the edited OP. If the pictures should explain this.
Attack routes -- I think these boil down more simply than you think; you have through the middle, and around the ravine. Sure you can dance around the middle, but, the towers pretty well keep tabs on the whole area. In close positions, the most direct route through the middle or the ravine are pretty comparable, so this makes things interesting, but not unmanageable. Going around the ravine the long way from close positions... well your opponent can pretty much just kill you, so you probably don't want to do that. Cross positions, you are pretty much going through the middle. You *can* go around, but it is much longer. Of course, if the game goes on, routes to the golds, etc. start to come into play, but at that point, you should have a much better handle on where things are on the map.
Golds -- I think that complaining about a quick fourth when a quick-ish third exists, sounds a little zerg qq. If zerg really want the base that bad, and let's face it, zerg expand for the gas, they can 2-hatch to the sides of the rocks not only mitigating the suboptimal mineral mining, but negating any suboptimal gas mining (which there *will* be even if you break down the rocks because of the way the gas is laid out -- one will always be one tile further to the base than the other) and also increasing production, *and* control over the base. Should one be sniped, the other might not be. But at this point, why could something not be dedicated to break down the rocks? You're on three bases already most likely.
All of this is really to say... you are gonna help me play test it right?
|
It looks really cool but the two golds on the far east and far west seem to be out of mapbounds. I did not actually try, but it looks like you won't be able to mine them like that. If that's the case just modify the map bounds a bit.
As for the name: Façade (fake expression on a face, referring to treachery or underlying evil)
|
|
|
@ Callynn -- I think you are referring to the yellow map bounds which are the camera bounds and not the play area bounds, those are blue. Since the camera is in the center of the screen there is playable/buildable/mineable area that extends past the camera boundaries. Thanks for the heads up though, and for the name suggestion.
@ Barrin -- You run a tight ship, thank you, sir!
|
i don't see how one could attack with melee units on this map, their are so many chokes and no open areas it seems like. There is a lot going on here and it seems like some of the holes could be take away like maybe 1/2 going diagonally are holes and the other 1/2 is peidmonts. I just don't see a clear way to use archon/ht/zealot here. PvP this would be a nightmare it seems like because it would clearly favor collosus play and not the robo-twilight we see a lot of now
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Did some playtesting on this map. It's quite pretty, and I like the innovative design elements in it and the "2 natural expansions" deal. A few thoughts:
- The high ground in the main can be walled with 2 2x2 or 1 2x2 and 1 3x3 building-- which means terran can wall off with just a depot + rax, denying early scouting quite effectively.
- The ramps into the nats, as you know are blockable by 2x2 buildings. There's some potential for abuse with autoturrets there, but not any worse than a normal ramp.
- I don't like the high grounds near the nats-- seems a lot like Tal'Darim Altar minus the need for a high-ground spotter. The ability to deny a nat that way expands the strength of builds like 1/1/1 in TvP and fast tank pushes in TvZ. In TvT it could also be an issue, but such is the nature of TvT.
- The 3:00 and 9:00 golds have room in between the minerals for marines to move. The 12:00 and 6:00 golds do not-- and if you build turrets, you can completely block off access to the high ground. There's not much room behind the min lines, which is understandable, but the fact that there's more or less ability to have AA depending on which of the golds it is is a problem. Consider bringing the minerals closer together or further apart on the expos so the ability to move marines around is the same at each gold base.
Here's me talking through my playthrough of this map against an easy AI: http://www.twitch.tv/blazinghand/b/297605811
I think I've included everything in that video in written form here. I think this map is pretty cool and look fowards to more maps from you, and more improvements to this map.
|
@ blazinghand -- First of all happy birthday. Thank you for sharing it with me like this, although you should be the one getting presents. 
I appreciate the thoughtful feedback, and especially the playtest video. That was very awesome of you to do! Although, I did have trouble making out everything you said in it because of the music/game sounds, you might need to turn up your mic a bit. I will have to listen to it again later to try and catch some of what you said.
I will have to think about these points in more depth, but I'd like to offer my initial reactions:
~ T wall-off -- while it is the case that T can wall-off as you mention (and there are other configurations than the one that you used in video) it is also the case that P could do the same sort of thing. And as mentioned earlier in this thread there was concern about P's forge fast expand not being viable, to which I posted pictures demonstrating a method to fast expand, but it depends on the ability to block off the ramp with a single 2x2 building (which means that at the very least T or P could fully wall with just 2 depots or pylons). Do you think that the solution to fix T's 2-building wall off is worth sacrificing P's FFE? (I ask this from a balance perspective, and not T's perspective of course.) This is in case I cannot come up with another way to arrange this to allow a FFE and require a 3 building T wall.
~ Does the fact that most ranged units can hit most of the top of the ramp (thus having the potential to kill off sieging units without having to leave the nat) not even this ledge out a bit? I was trying to make the nat a good mix of safe and attackable to balance out the fact that there are two right there. I'm pretty sure spines/cannons can hit all of the high ground part where vision is gained.
~ I lol'ed a bit in the video where you mentioned the positional imbalance here, because to me (maybe I'm the only one) it is infuriating that you cannot rotate minerals to "completely" balance the symmetry of the map. So I tried to balance the mining time of the differences of the golds above all. But you are right, they are slightly different since each patch *must* be 2x1 horizontally. I will have to think about how to fix this and keep the symmetry as close as possible, but do you think this is something that will really break the map? My thought is that in general, in a 1v1, each race will likely take an opposing gold, and that as such they are balanced since they each will have to deal with the same manueverability issues. Maybe in cross positions the two sides might wind up expanding toward adjacent golds, but if there is a known positional advantage to going to one of the golds over the other, it seems like that would be the one even cross positions would be likely to go to first. So in that way, there may not be a problem really -- what do you think?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On October 16 2011 14:13 docvoc wrote:
i don't see how one could attack with melee units on this map, their are so many chokes and no open areas it seems like. There is a lot going on here and it seems like some of the holes could be take away like maybe 1/2 going diagonally are holes and the other 1/2 is peidmonts. I just don't see a clear way to use archon/ht/zealot here. PvP this would be a nightmare it seems like because it would clearly favor collosus play and not the robo-twilight we see a lot of now
Have you tried this out (the map, the tactics)? I suggest you please do, because a diamond zerg friend of mine was thinking the opposite concerning lings. He thought there were not enough chokes for P to funnel zerg into and that it would make it very Z favored since you could easily surround with lings. His though was to actually add holes or "pillars" instead of just ramps which is the opposite of your suggestion it seems.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Hey, sorry for the sound balance on the video. I'm still trying to work my microphone stuff out.
As far as the wall thing goes, I get that protoss needs an easy way to wall out the other natural when they FFE-- but I don't know the solution to that. As far as the 2-building main wallin goes, it's much more viable for terran because you can lower the depot or raise the rax; protoss has no equivalent solution. I'm not really sure how to solve the FFE problem D:
Being able to shoot units on the ramp is cool, but again, this is something that's possible on tal'darim altar as well-- the defender on the high ground can always shoot down, and this is still a problem. It might be possible that the naturals are already vulnerable enough with the "2 nat chokes" as it is.
Yeah the lack of mineral rotation is lame D: I feel like if you spread out the minerals or arched them a little more on the 12:00 and 6:00, just enough to allow a square for marines to walk through, that would solve the problem. It might not even factor in in regular play-- I haven't played enough games on the map to know if the difference between 12/6 and 3/9 has an impact.
|
I wish there would be a tester community that comments on melee maps with constructive feedback vocally on all maps posted here
Pity I can't play this map, because I am EU. =(
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
On October 15 2011 15:25 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:@ Hassybaby -- I misread this one before, but once I understood what you were saying I literally lol'ed. I think I'd have to shower with my clothes on in *that* bathroom! Ain't the hot water give'n me shivers, if ya know what I mean.
Holy crap, I just saw the beauty shots...ok I take it back, I don't want that as a tile 
|
Something pirate or death related would be great for a name.
(4)Dead Man Laughing
(4)Death Valley
(4)Jolly Roger
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
After thinking about it a bit, shifting all the gold minlines (including gasses and rocks) 1 square away from the edge, actually, might solve the minline AA problem, since there will be more room behind for turrets or marines.
|
@ Blazinghand -- I've been thinking about the wall in, and I think I can force a three building (2 supply/rax) wall in on the high ground without ruining the pathing of that area. And technically, Protoss is still able to FFE because they can still pylon at the bottom of the ramp of the opposite side. However, this still doesn't technically stop T from fully walling in with just two buildings because I think they could simply follow suit and build the depot/rax to block the low ground part of the ramp instead of on the high ground. Now, this adds a bit more risk to it because it does not have the added advantage of being on the high ground and thus is more susceptible to pressure. On the other hand, technically, you still have the same problem you are referring to where T can block scouting more easily. So, at the moment, I'd like to see how the map plays out a bit more in this regard before making any changes, especially, since I still do not see a way to keep the FFE ability while preventing a T two building block.
As far as the ramp (tooth) goes, would you say that the problem is the vision it yields or the siegability of the nat primarily (or is it the combination)? If it is the easy vision, I can simply lose the ramp and lower that patch of ground or something. If it is the siege, then I need to do something completely different with that section so that siege isn't as strong. The problem then, in my mind, though, is that it becomes much more difficult (in theory) to harass the either or both of the two naturals, at least by ground. As it is already fairly easy to take both (even if it means expanding toward your opponent), I was trying to avoid the three base play being too safely able to turtle, as I mentioned. Even though there are the two nat chokes, once you have both bases established, you still only have to worry about two chokes, which can both be walled fairly easily. What I've been thinking about as a potential fix, depending on what you think is the real problem (vision vs siege) is extending the natrual to wrap around the ramp a bit more so that the entire ramp can be surrounded which reduces siege area that can hit the natural to just the ramp, and allows for a certain level of defense without having to leave the base. Maybe this is a better mix of attack/defendability?
About the golds, yeah, I was thinking the same thing after looking at it a bit, I think I can simply move the minerals up a square on both sides and it should be fine, although, the 6/12 will still have solid minerals whereas the 3/9 will have gaps. There is a way to remedy that easily, but I'm not sure the mineral formation I'm thinking of is considered a "Blizz standard" even though I think it still has the same mining time/distance.
Do you think you might be able to play an actual game on this with your friend like you did on my other map? i hate to say it, but I think the Very Easy computer had you outmatched. Also, I've been wondering, most of your comments have been T/P related, my friend who is a diamond zerg thought my maps were very zerg favored, do you have any thoughts on that?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
@ Callynn -- I'd love to let you play this on EU. The map contest mentions something about the maps being published on NA and EU near the end of the contest for play testing but that might only be the finalists or the ones for the tournament... I'll have to go back and look at that again. Anyway, in lieu of that maybe we could do some sort of temporary publishing exchange. You can PM me if that interests you.
|
OP updated, added analyzer images.
|
|
|
Version 1.3 uploaded to NA.
Changes:
~ Main choke added pathable but unbuildable doodads to force 3 building terran wall-off (protoss ffe still possible with pylon blocking bottom of ramp)
~ Modified natural spotting ramp to 1 diagonal width from 2 allowing for range 6 units to hit the entire ramp to pick off spotters, range 5 can hit large units anywhere on ramp.
~ High ground added at natural spotting ramp for overlord (unpathable)
~ High ground added between naturals in middle for overloard (pathable)
~ Gold base resources moved toward center 1 tile and mineral pattern modified to allow for better and more even pathing despite mineral shape based asymmetry
~ Natural extended slightly around spotting ramp to allow better defensive coverage of siege spotter
~ Natural resources moved toward center one tile (so north if in south, etc.) to accommodate boundary resizing
~ Natural terrain at back edge moved in one tile
~ Playable bounds resized back to 150x150 from 152x152 now that the correct playable/buildable area of the naturals has been fixed
~ Re-textured relevant modified terrain
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uHxAk.jpg)
OP edit will come as soon...
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On October 20 2011 15:24 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
Version 1.3 uploaded to NA.
Changes:
~ Main choke added pathable but unbuildable doodads to force 3 building terran wall-off (protoss ffe still possible with pylon blocking bottom of ramp)
~ Modified natural spotting ramp to 1 diagonal width from 2 allowing for range 6 units to hit the entire ramp to pick off spotters, range 5 can hit large units anywhere on ramp.
These two changes are excellent and should be great for TvX on this map :D
~ Gold base resources moved toward center 1 tile and mineral pattern modified to allow for better and more even pathing despite mineral shape based asymmetry
I'll go test this out. sounds like the problems have been fixed though.
I'll get some people together to test this map a little later today or tomorrow.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Hi HypertonicHydroponic,
I did some playtesting on this map, mostly trying to figure out if there are problems with the double-natural situation.
Replays:
http://drop.sc/46575
http://drop.sc/46576
VoD:
My stream stopped working due to internet issues around this time ._.
Findings:
Basically, I think the ramps at the front of the naturals need to be slightly re-shaped due to "sweet spotting" and also the need to not actually have a shared ramp.
Here's a classic example of a Sweet Spot:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ChsbX.jpg)
On Blistering Sands, the attacker was able to outmaneuver a similar-speed defending army because of the shape of the area between the two chokes. This was, in a word, pretty lame, and was part of the reason Blistering Sands was generally disliked.
This is not a problem for 2 base play on your map:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vbF0W.jpg)
But, once both naturals have been taken, there is a Sweet Spot.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DXejI.jpg)
Generally, maps take two routes regarding third bases-- some thirds, like the Xel'Naga caverns gold third, are along existing attack routes. Other maps, like Typhon Peaks, Tal'Darim Altar, or the old Bel'shir Beach, have thirds that don't occupy the primary exit to the Natural:
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/1/12/BelShirBeach.jpg/562px-BelShirBeach.jpg)
Your map falls into this latter category. The big thing worth noting is that on these maps, although the thirds are generally attackable, it's slightly easier for the defender to get into position to defend them than attack them. Typhon Peaks is a little different with the vulnerability low-ground third, but the rocks blocking the path in as well as the general "closedness" of the third make it a bit safer.
The main rule is that the third base should be more accessable to a defending army than an attacking army. On a map with a "double natural" this is a unique challenge, since you can't have a shared choke for the double nat, since that would make certain openings (Forge FE and its ilk) unbelievably strong for taking quick thirds without worrying about any pressure.
The alternative, that each natural have a choke, is superior, but you have to watch out for what happens on 3 base play with the possibility of a mobile attacking army. Although the obvious solution is to put your own defending forces in the sweet spot, this is a dangerous proposition given the fact that it's on the low-ground, since the naturals are on a high-ground.
My thought would be to rotate the ramps away from each other, rather than towards each other, to increase the attacker choke-to-choke distance a little, or maybe have a destructable rock splitting the main ramp down into the two naturals in two or something, to make it a bit more defensible. Not sure though-- this will have to be your call.
|
@ Blaizinghand -- Thanks again, for play testing one of my maps.
I watched the replays, but unless I'm missing something, they each seemed a little like one player just wasn't prepared in some manner or another. The zerg player seemed like his economy could have supported many more units much more quickly against you in the first game. And in the second game, the protoss player just seemed to give things away with an Artosis pylon. If there was more nuance than that which indicates a flaw of the map you would have to explain it to me.
Neither of the replays particularly seemed to demonstrate the point you are making above about the sweet spot. I thought that the I would see it in the attack you made between the naturals, but it seemed like the zerg player just didn't have enough regardless of which way you attacked initially or decided to continue the attack (that is, into the main or the other natural).
One of the big reasons I have my ramps facing the way they do has to do with the rush distance. If I were to face them away from each other, the rush distance through the gold base area would be that much faster, which may prove to be too fast. Plus, in it's current positioning, enemy untis coming through the gold area can be bombarded as they wrap around the edge of the mid-ground formation. Swinging the ramp around, even to a 45 degree angle, loses some of this defensibility.
Secondly, even though the "sweet spot" can certainly favor the enemy to a degree, I think it is much more circumstantial than on a map like blistering sands. The "sweet spot" there was bad too be sure, but there were three things that made it different and much more abhorent than my configuration:
1) The back door was actually closer to the enemy's resupply line which means that a backdoor attack was actually somewhat more deadly than an assault on the natural.
2) The sweet spot was generally not very scoutable. It was quite difficult to determine the intention of the enemy army's movements, and so even if you were to stick your army directly in the middle of the route between the natural choke and the backdoor (i.e. somewhere near the top of your ramp in the main) your opponent was almost garaunteed to do *some* damage because you would at least have to move into place to defend.
3) The distance of the sweet spot was generally not short enough to be used as a flanking opportunity.
Also, and I'm not sure this couldn't be a fourth point, but this "sweet spot" has to do with the nat-to-third, and not the main-to-nat. And seeing how the third in most cases on this map is also going to be a technical natural as well, whatever disadvantage comes from this sweet spot should probably be counterbalanced by the fact that it is a little more safe in general than most thirds.
Now in counterpoint:
1) While the natural that is the backdoor will technically be closer to the enemy resupply route, it is not also directly into the main, it is an expansion. While losing an expansion is never fun and may certainly herald the end of the game, it is by no means as devestating as losing the main (in most cases).
2) The route between the two natruals is very visible from both naturals as well as the main choke area to a degree. It is not very difficult to see whether the attack is going to continue on the opposite side or if the enemy is in retreat.
3) The slightly short distance between the naturals can be used defensively for flanks and as such is not simply a tool of the enemy. While it may not be the most ideal to have a split army, a flank from behind cutting off an attacking army's retreat can wind up being a huge boon to the defender in what would have otherwise been most certainly a loss of some kind.
If the ramps are turned away from each other, you shorten the rush distance and lose the potential for a defensive sweet spot. So as far as your two solutions go, I am more inclined to go with a rock-based solution. But I will have to think about that a little more, because I'm not sure I like the idea of shrinking that low ground area and allowing a third/"more direct" path between the two naturals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
