• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 03:04
CET 09:04
KST 17:04
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview0TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners11Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10[ASL20] Finals Preview: Arrival13TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting12
Community News
[TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation9Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada4SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA8StarCraft, SC2, HotS, WC3, Returning to Blizzcon!45$5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship7
StarCraft 2
General
[TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada Craziest Micro Moments Of All Time?
Tourneys
Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest Tenacious Turtle Tussle RSL S3 Round of 16 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death Mutation # 497 Battle Haredened Mutation # 496 Endless Infection
Brood War
General
FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle [ASL20] Ask the mapmakers — Drop your questions BW General Discussion Terran 1:35 12 Gas Optimization BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] RO32 Group D - Sunday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO32 Group C - Saturday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Current Meta PvZ map balance How to stay on top of macro? Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread EVE Corporation Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games? Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Dyadica Gospel – a Pulp No…
Hildegard
Coffee x Performance in Espo…
TrAiDoS
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Reality "theory" prov…
perfectspheres
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1633 users

[M] (4) Blockbuster

Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games
Post a Reply
Normal
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-11-03 12:26:25
October 15 2011 22:48 GMT
#1
Blockbuster v.1.00
This map is intended for the TL Mapping Contest instigated by Blizzard.

This map is published on NA.

+ Show Spoiler [Other Contest Maps] +
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=275207 -- Xel'Naga's Folly
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279838 -- Trillium Toxicodendron


Creation Details:
+ Show Spoiler +
This map is intended for the TL Map Contest instigated by Blizzard. The concepts that I am playing with in this map (I think) are maybe not as extreme as in some of my other maps. The particular idea that I based this map around is "quick" and "easy" four base play. Whether this map accomplishes that may be debateable, but I think the ways in which I have tried to bring that about at least make for some interesting discussion and game play.

So the first thing I didn't want to do was to create the same old zig-zag nat-to-third expansion layout that plague so many four player rotational symmetry maps (not that I particularly mind that per-se, but that seems to be what most of the people who are looking for innovation have a beef with). What I was tempted to do, was to just simply make a HUGE open square main base and just put resources in each corner with some sort of funky choke that was safe early but could be widened greatly later or something like that. But I figured, that would be too over the top for the contest (although, I'm sure we would find *something* like that on a Blizz headquarters computer somewhere ). But I still liked the idea of having four opposing corner bases, so I decided to make a sort of horseshoe shape out of them. In this way, the third is actually toward the center of the map instead of just toward the perpedicular edge of the map -- it isn't until the fourth base that you might decide to expand in this direction.

So, with that in mind, I had to choose a fitting aesthetic... well, what kind of tile set would be fitting to host what is essentially the product of a bunch of large squares (rectangles)? Urban, right... So what I've come up with is essentially a rooftop battle on a mega building that spans the area of a decently sized town (right? or is my sense of proportion off?).

But... now that I'm here, what do you do to make a rooftop aesthetically pleasing? Making a rooftop city/town out of it? Make it more rooflike? How? Obviously something needs to be done on this roof, maintenance at the very least (especially if there are going to be, you know, wars and explosions up here). Well, I did my best, and as far as textures go it is somewhat of a minimalist approach, but hopefully, it is good enough. I'm still up for suggestions before the contest is over.

So what have I done with this roof so far? Well, instead of the standard use of cliffs to separate bases, I use a combination of dead space and line of sight blockers, which I think creates a really neat effect. Interspersed amongst the LOSBs are some roof-like doodads: antenna, serach light, AC unit, etc. On some of the walls I put alarm lights in case of emergency (wink). And then there are some street lights... because... well, maybe maintenance crews need that kind of light up there! Although, I need to figure out how to get the streetlights lit (sigh, omni lights why wont you work!?).

Anyway, your main base is a pretty straightfoward big thirty (30) CC rectangle of building top. It has a single choke (what? I made a map with a single Main Choke!?) of six (6) tiles wide that can be walled off with a fairly standard configuration (slightly shifted). It can also be walled competely with two 3x3 buildings. Two sides of the main have air space/LOSB walls that separate it from the natural and the fourth.

The natural is a slightly smaller rectangle (square?) of building top. It has two chokes aside from the one from the main. The one choke goes toward the third and is the same size as the main choke. The other choke is a single-wide, cardinal direction ramp leading down a path toward the fourth of another spawn. The base location sits in the corner against the edge of the map and the LOSB wall to the main, so basically the same positioning as the main.

The third also has two exits besides that to the nat, and is slightly smaller than the nat. There is a 4-5? wide, cardinal-direction, double-layer ramp toward the middle of the map (toward the third of the spawn of the player whose fourth the natural back path is toward). The choke to the fourth is similar to that of the choke from the main to the nat, and the nat to the third. The base location sits in the corner against the wall toward the middle and the wall toward the fourth, and as such is the first base really vulnerable to any sort of siege-type play.

The fourth and final base of the quadrant sits in a position much like that of the main and nat tucked in the far corner. However, while this base area is as long as the main, it is only as wide as the third and has a very wide (10-12?), cardinal-direction, double-layer ramp directly in front of the base location. This ramp is partially covered on the side toward the middle with three large chunks of debris, making it slightly safer but still fairly vulnerable. Needless to say, taking this base has its risks.

(For visualization purposes -- The low ground is a huge plus sign between the quad bases. Each quad base is a horseshoe shape with the main in the corner of the map, the natural clock wise of the main, the third clock wise of the natural, and the fourth clockwise of the third. The quad bases are rotationally symmetrical to each other.)

All of these bases are on the same level ground (high) and are split with air-space/LOSB walls which are not pathable (sorry nukers -- while we are on the subject of apologizing for blocking certain abuses, Protoss warp ins *do not* extend far enough to get into the main from the nat/fourth). There are two sections of mid ground, one is the path between nat/fourths, and the other are the walls in the middle which also have LOSB walls on top of them (these are much more cosmetic than anything else, since most things that can see over the wall would see over the LOSBs) and are pathable. The rest of the space between the quad bases is low ground that runs in a circuit such that there is a path through the middle and a path around toward the edge of the map for close bases. There is a Xel'Naga tower in the middle which reveals everything to the tippy corners (of the third) of the quad bases. There are four more Xel'Naga towers in the middle of the mid-ground wall that can see almost all of that half of the map's low ground, and peeks up into the nat/third and third/fourth of two of the quad bases. These four towers can be captured from either side of the wall, but does not allow normal ground pathing through the middle of the wall. These side towers are surrounded by small chunks of debris (since there is no standard debris large enough to cover the tower without being able to still activate it) to not make them as overpowering in the early game. The each set of debris acts as if it is connected, so breaking down one side will break the whole ring.

So I didn't quite get the four-opposing-corner-square of bases, but I think this works out pretty nicely. Again, if anyone has suggestions for to improve upon the aesthetic I'd like to hear your ideas.

Oh yeah... the name. So originally, I was thinking of something like "Fourplay" indicating the "quick" and "easy" four base play I had envisioned. But... that doesn't necessarily capture the rooftop, element. Same with "Freebasing", and both have possibly objectionable connotations for a Blizzard ladder map name. But then as I was about to ask for suggestions in this regard, the current name popped into my head, because well, you have this "block" of bases and you are just to "bust" your opponent's "block" of a base.

I think that's all there is to say about it -- enjoy! Please playtest it and leave feedback!



Map Pics:
+ Show Spoiler +
Overview
(90 degrees)
[image loading]

(Game angle, full map)
[image loading]

Analyzer (The changes to the terrain that are apparent between these old analyzer images and the updated overview picture have a negligible to non-existant effect on rush distances. As such, the analyzer pictures will not be updated at this time. It should be noted however that for whatever reason, the AI chooses to take a very slightly longer route between mains through the backdoor of the third which is about 42 seconds, even though the analyzer still shows going through the fourth is faster and forcing the path through the fourth is still closer to 41 seconds.)
+ Show Spoiler +

Summary
[image loading]

Rush distances
+ Show Spoiler +

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]


Other Rush distances and variant routes (rocks used to force routes)
+ Show Spoiler +

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]



Details
+ Show Spoiler ['Beauty' shots] +

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Creep connections] +

Only two tumors needed to connect the main to the natural -- you can see the edge of both bases on one screen (one tumor from nat to third, two from third to fourth)
[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Wall-offs] +

Terran (so many options -- go figure it out lol :p)

Protoss
Narrowest choke -- 1 zealot (may negatively affect archons/immortals passing through)
[image loading]

Medium choke -- 1 zealot
[image loading]

Widest choke -- can do with 1 zealot, but has to be perfect; 1 zealot and 1 probe easily block
[image loading]

Forge Fast Expand
[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Siege range] +

Into Nat
[image loading]

Into Third
[image loading]

Into Fourth
[image loading]

Into Main (from fourth)
[image loading]



Map Specifications:
  • Size -- 150x150 playable (176x184 full)
  • Tileset -- All Korhal
  • # Players -- 4
  • Main Locations -- 2 / 5 / 8 / 11
  • # Bases -- 16
    • 16x 8min, 2gas {main & x2 natural} (standard min/gas amount)
    • Total Resources -- 272,000
    • Saturation -- 12.0888~

  • Rush Distance Timings
    • Close (these will be from the point of view of the 7:30 base to the 4:30 base)
      • Main Choke to Main Choke -- ~41sec
      • Main Choke to Main Choke (through middle) -- ~43sec
      • Nat Choke to Nat Choke -- ~35sec

    • Cross
      • Main Choke to Main Choke -- ~46sec
      • Nat Choke to Nat Choke -- ~38sec


  • # Xel'Naga Watchtowers -- 5
    • One tower dead center
    • One tower in the middle of the wall on each side/wing

  • Line of Sight Blockers -- 24
    • Four creating the boundaries between the main/nat, nat/third, third/fourth, and fourth/main in each of the quad bases (functional) -- 16 strips total
    • One on each of the two sections of wall in the middle of the low ground area between the quad bases (mostly cosmetic) -- 8 strips total

  • Destructible Rocks -- 44
    • Eight (8) 2x2 debris surrounding each of the four Xel'Naga towers on the wings -- 32 total
    • Three (3) 4x4 debris blocking a portion of the ramp to the fourth -- 12 total

  • Unpathable terrain -- 16
    • Each of the walls between the bases where the LOSBs separate vision of the different sections of the quad base.



Change Log:
version 1.00 posted -- OP, published to NA

Final comments:
Another squared map (BW!) but this one actually I gave a little air space too around the edge. Not a whole lot, but more than I have allowed on other maps. Actually, as I was making this the map I thought of most was Nightfever, the Coutner Strike map -- those were fun times. Hopefully you find this map enjoyable -- please playtest it! Please reserve balance comments until you've played it!

Edit1: (10/15/11) OP Construction finished.
Edit2: (10/17/11) Added note about destructible rocks around towers, fixed typo reversing rush distances
Edit3: (10/18/11) Added analyzer images
Edit4: (11/03/11) Added note about analyzer pictures
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Callynn
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands917 Posts
October 15 2011 23:03 GMT
#2
Could you at least add a visual referance if you are making a post early on? The purpose of posting on the forum is, after all receiving comment on your plan and development, but I could really use a concept drawn out (in paint for example) to give feedback.
Comparing BW with SCII is like comparing a beautiful three-master sailing ship with a modern battlecruiser. Both are beautiful in their own way, both perform the same task, but they are worlds apart in how they are built and how they are steered.
dezi
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Germany1536 Posts
October 15 2011 23:14 GMT
#3
No Pic - No Feedback ~
TPW Member | My Maps @ TL: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=171486 | Search 'dezi' at EU
Antares777
Profile Joined June 2010
United States1971 Posts
October 15 2011 23:23 GMT
#4
On October 16 2011 08:14 dezi wrote:
No Pic - No Feedback ~

monitor
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2408 Posts
October 16 2011 00:36 GMT
#5
On October 16 2011 08:14 dezi wrote:
No Pic - No Feedback ~

https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Monitor
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
October 16 2011 01:38 GMT
#6
--- Nuked ---
FlopTurnReaver
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Switzerland1980 Posts
October 16 2011 01:50 GMT
#7
On October 16 2011 07:48 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
This post is under construction -- I need to get the post up to put the link in my map description so I can publish the map.

Funny priorities [image loading]

Why don't you just make pictures, make the thread and then publish the map? It's kinda pointless to post a thread like this.
Check out @MapOfTheMonth on Twitter and under http://bit.ly/motmorg
G_Wen
Profile Joined September 2009
Canada525 Posts
October 16 2011 02:05 GMT
#8
OK so I read that huge post about your map and I still have no idea if the map is rotationally symmetrical or if it`s mirrored along an axis since you didn`t actually explain that in your post. I also don`t know which way the horse shoe faces for which spawns but it`s not like that detail even matters because I don`t know how you decided where your spawns located relative to the other spawns, but I do know how you decided to decorate the map since you decided to dedicate three paragraphs describing in detail how you plan on decorating the roof with various doodads.

In conclusion I have had more success trying to evert a sphere than making a mental picture of your map, map also seems really Terran favored, guess that sometimes happens when the 4th is connected to the main, the third but not the natural, while the natural is connected to the third which can be seen by the xel naga tower in the centre of the map which can be held from the main but not without being in range of the said seige tank from the 4th.
ESV Mapmaking Team
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
October 16 2011 03:19 GMT
#9
Guys, I apologize. I realize now that after having read that wall of text, having an "under construction" pop out at you in the pictures must have been a big let down. However, I *did* try to warn you that the ***post*** was under construction at the very top.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On October 16 2011 10:50 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 16 2011 07:48 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
This post is under construction -- I need to get the post up to put the link in my map description so I can publish the map.

Funny priorities [image loading]

Why don't you just make pictures, make the thread and then publish the map? It's kinda pointless to post a thread like this.

Because life has a funny way of taking your plans and jamming them up the rear with a large pole sometimes. I was supposed to have a large chunk of time to finish this stuff off hours ago, but as a family man things happened to get in the way of that. So, in order not to hold up some people who were going to help me playtest the map today, I had to get the map in working order and published before my post -- that meant having my map info section finalized which meant having the link. You may not agree with the methodology, but my reasons are my reasons.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

@ G_Wen -- Again, I apologize. I not only ran out of time as far as the pictures go, but I did not finish redacting my write up. I still need to go do this and these are some helpful points for me to remember to cover. But again, I did say the post was still under construction.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Anywho, the post and the map are now version 1.0 (and will both probably be 1.5 before the end of the month). Please hop on B.Net 2.0 to give the map a spin!
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-17 11:14:48
October 17 2011 10:04 GMT
#10
Played some games on this map, a few thoughts:

The "narrow backdoor" into the nats reduces scouting distance rather well, but also reduces rush distances for marine/scv bunker rushes.

This map would be super 4gate-heavy in PvP; worse than tal'darim altar, due to no defending ramps or high ground advantage at all, at the main or the natural-- chokes are too wide to be FFed. The only builds would be 4gate and defensive 4gate.

The watch tower that can give tanks high ground sight into the minline of the 3rd base is incredibly strong. A watch tower should only do that to a gold base imo.

Commentated playthroughs (Master League level):
http://www.twitch.tv/blazinghand/b/297680323

Replays associated with that VoD:

Blazinghand (T) vs Trinity (P)
http://drop.sc/45162

Blazinghand (T) vs Trinity (P)
http://drop.sc/45163
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
EffectS
Profile Joined May 2010
Belgium795 Posts
October 17 2011 12:07 GMT
#11
Oh god no! Rename that map! I wanted Blockbuster for an upcoming map I'm making!!!!!!

As for the actual map itself, I don't see it being succesful competitively. The expansions are too close together and there's no real expansion lay-out after 4 bases. There have been maps like this in the past (BW) but neither of those were succesful, so made it to a MSL or some other big tournament but they all got replaced soon after. By maps like this I mean blockshaped maps with unorthodox styles.
TEEHEE
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
October 18 2011 03:07 GMT
#12
OP edit.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

@ blazinghand -- Wow, thanks for the feedback on this map, too. I have to wonder, are you a part of the the official review process for the contest or do you have your own reasons for doing this? If this is a personal initiative, that is utterly awesome. I think the mapping community here would really appreciate a group of playtesters giving feedback about the maps to further improve the quality of future map pools. That is cool, too, if you are a part of the review system, but please consider doing more of these in the future!

On to your comments:

First, I watched the video (the mic was a bit better this time ) and I have to say that overall I was liking the way the map played out. Now, not to take anything away from your friend, I'm sure he could easily beat me, but he seemed a little off his game (I think there was even a comment to that effect in the video). I'm not sure it would have seemed so one sided if he were more practiced and more prepared for the timings of the map.

Now, as to the narrow backdoor rush distance, using Barrin's timing method, both back door and through the center from the main choke are about equal. For my posting I put the back door as approximately two seconds ahead, but really, they are both about 42sec long. The backdoor is on the early side of 42, like right as it turns, and the middle is right as it is about to turn 43. I know every second counts, but it doesn't seem like its nearly as much of a shortcut as you are saying.

Do you know of any good replays/VOD's of the standard Tal'Darim PvP to get a better idea of what you are talking about and why it is any different than other 4gate vs 4gate I've seen? I'm not sure I've experienced that match up on that map -- I haven't been getting to watch as much lately with this contest and work lately. Would you say that the only way to fix this is to have a main ramp and/or a natural ramp? What about a ramp going down and back up out of the main and/or nat? I'd like to keep all of the bases on the same level if possible. Would simply narrowing the first two chokes to allow a single forcefield to block work? Or does this then make a 2 building T wall off too powerful once again?

As for the tower, it seems like your friend was somewhat flustered by the siege and was relying on getting out better units/upgrades instead of thinking about tactics. Before the siege was as solidified as it was it seems like he could have split his army down the ramps out of the third and out of the fourth and surrounded the siege and at least put up a decent fight instead of giving so much away to splash up on the ridge. With the range the stalkers had on the tanks he might have been able to make a three pronged attack such that the zealot/sentry surround plus the stalkers from the top could have cleared the whole thing. I'll have to look at the replay further to see who was ahead in army size and whatnot, but it seems like if he were more prepared for the eventuality of a siege (getting blink before charge for example) he might not have wound up falling so far behind. Also, he might have gotten out an immortal or two earlier to soak up some of the damage. I'm not saying that the tower isn't very powerful there, I'm just not convinced from that one game that it is overwhelmingly powerful. Other strategical considerations in this regard are possibly taking the fourth over the third if you think your opponent might be going for siege units maybe? I'd like to know your thoughts on some of these alternatives. If I had to wind up moving the towers, do you think simply moving them further down toward the nat/fourth would work, or do you think that this would be too powerful as well (for reference the range might just barely touch the edge of the base at the fourth if moved all the way to the end). That line about being "morally wrong" was hilarious, btw.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

@ EffectS -- Sorry about the name man, inspiration is inspiration. You have a fitting alternative suggestion for me? Although, my map is on NA and yours would be EU, so at least you could still take it over there for now if it were available.

Would you mind explaining how the expansions are too close? This is a 150x150 map, and while you do not have to do too much fancy backtracking to get to the next base, it uses up quite a bit of space to get to the next one. Also, as to further expansions, it is not too hard to go down the narrow backdoor to grab a base in the natural/fourth of a neighbor. It is a little less protected, but certainly possible as one of my zerg friend's demonstrated on me the other day.

[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
October 18 2011 07:04 GMT
#13
Oh I just played on a few maps here on TL with some friends because they looked cool :D I think mapmaking is a pretty important part of balance, so helping develop a community of experienced mapmakers is good. I'm just a dude not a contest reviewer.

The whole thing with 4gates in PvP works kinda of like this:

4-gate is a strong PvP all in. The way all ins work is, the defender has a number of advantages to make up for his smaller army as a result of a non all in build:
  • Ramp
  • Rush Distance
  • Statics and workers
In PvP, Statics is removed due to the cannon requiring a forge (rather than spine crawler which needs pool, or bunker that needs rax) and being out of the way text wise. When executing a 4-gate rush, Rush Distance is removed as well. That means that the only defending advantage there is in 4gate meta PvP is Ramp. Ramp gives Vision Advantage and provides a choke that can be FFed, compounding the vision advantage.

In a wide choke without a ramp, this final defender's advantage is broken; and the defender has no option in PvP except to execute his own 4gate, and be "more economical" by not proxying any pylons. As a terran player, I lack PvP replays at the high level on Tal'Darim Altar, but the professionally used map Bel'shir Beach (post patch, removing the high-ground near the choke) would be analogous in terms of PvP defense due to the lack of a ramped choke between the natural and the main. Looking for GSL (probably Code A) replays of PvP would probably be your best bet.

It's not imbalanced, it just makes the strategies in PvP kinda... 4gatey.

I'm not really sure how to solve the tower problem or the choke problem. It might even be as small as rotating the mineral line a bit? But again, it *is* the third base, rather than the natural, making it less of a problem since by then you'll have more anti-siege options.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
October 19 2011 05:30 GMT
#14
OP updated, added analyzer images.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

@ Blazinghand -- I was just asking if there was something particular about the 4-gate on Tal'Darim Altar since you kept mentioning it.

I'd love to get more feedback from some of your friends/practice partners so I can know if I things really need to be tweaked before the end of the contest submission period. So far you are the only one who has really given me anything substantial to work with (besides some notes from a few people I know who are not quite masters level). :-/

Again, it is really cool that you did review a few maps (I saw you reviewed one Mereel did too) like that. Please consider doing more in the future.
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
October 19 2011 06:12 GMT
#15
Yeah it's just a high-ground/ramp thing-- without that defending advantage, PvP gets more 4gatey, since sentries for defense are less viable.

I'll play more games on it when I get the chance-- I'm somewhat busy during the week. I'd play on more maps but most of them are on EU or KR where my partners don't have accounts ._.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
sCfO20
Profile Joined May 2011
176 Posts
October 19 2011 06:16 GMT
#16
Why is there a 卐 on my screen
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
October 19 2011 09:06 GMT
#17
Ok, so more generally: The third base is wayyy too easy to take. It doesn't open up more attack routes when you take it since it's basically at the choke of your nat, especially if you're defending with your army (despite the tower issues). The fourth is also pretty easy to take... maybe put some mineral-patch-walls (30 each or something) between the third and the fourth, and add a 2nd entrance to the third besides the current route to the fourth and the ramp at the front, making the third harder to defend and the fourth harder to take.

Because of the "all the bases are one sort of chokey base" deal it feels like it's hard to attack into the third base.

Uninteresting ZvP, demonstrates some base dynamics, that defending is pretty easy: http://drop.sc/45578
This ZvP shows how easy it is for both sides to take lots of bases (up to 4): http://drop.sc/45579

associated video: http://www.twitch.tv/blazinghand/b/297828189
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
October 20 2011 02:08 GMT
#18
@ sCfO20 -- C'mon dude... really? Unless a four-spawn rotationally symmetric map is also reflectionally symmetric you are going to have some element of that pattern. How about instead of immature comments, you playtest the map and offer some thoughtful feedback on possible improvements?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

@ Blazinghand -- Well, to have a relatively quick and easy 4 bases was something I set out to do with this map, so at least it is doing something right! XD It seems like you think that this concept is a problem though, why is that?

While taking the third does not open up any new attack routes per se, it does split your attention between the ramp at the front and the choke at the back, which prior to taking the third would both be funneled into the natural choke (thus making the fact that there are two paths somewhat moot at this point). Are you saying that since the third is so small this split attention does not matter since the army does not have to move very much? Wouldn't a surround of the third (with or without siege) still be somewhat riskier? Or are you saying that once you take your fourth, defending the third becomes too easy?

Also, it seems now that you are saying the opposite regarding holding the third and that the vulnerability from the tower is not overpowering (even if still very strong). Do you still think the tower should be moved/removed?

Why do you think another route should be opened to the third when you already think vision from the tower is so strong? The only other place to open up is behind the mineral line which is directly in front of the tower. Wouldn't this make the third too vulnerable since it could not only be sieged but entered from that side as well? Or are you saying that this should be done as a replacement for the watchtower? And if the watchtower goes, do you think some sort of vision between the two lanes is at all useful (like small unpathable slits in the wall where a ground unit could peak through at certain intervals)? Tbh, it didn't look like the towers came much into play for shenanigans in any of those three games.

As for the making the bases less 4-gatey... what if... there were a ramp in the place where the current chokes are, but instead of being a single ramp, it were a double ramp. This double ramp configuration would be such that you go down and then back up to go from any one base to the next, so the bases still remain at the same level, but a small group of units would lose high ground vision briefly as they went from one base to the next. It forces the buildings to be at least six tiles away from the opposite side which means they could not be picked at by stalkers just from the opposing high ground, and a proxy pylon would either have to be somewhere in the natural or make it into your base -- you couldn't just sit the proxy in front of the gateway (assuming a standard wall-off configuration) and warp over the gateway into the base. Assuming this is a good idea, Would this be enough to make it less 4-gatey, or would the main ramp still have to be narrower to allow a single force field block?

Also, do you like this map better than my other map? You've played it a few times now, and you just looked at the other with the Very Easy AI. Do you have any aesthetic suggestions for a rooftop setting? What would you like to see that says "interesting roof" to you?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I'd love to hear if anyone else has any suggestions for this map -- only 12 days left you know!
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
October 20 2011 06:28 GMT
#19
On October 20 2011 11:08 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
@ Blazinghand -- Well, to have a relatively quick and easy 4 bases was something I set out to do with this map, so at least it is doing something right! XD It seems like you think that this concept is a problem though, why is that?

If that's your goal, then that's fine-- I'm more used to maps with fourth bases that are further away. There ARE maps with 3-4 easy-to-defend bases, but usually they're a little more spread out.

On October 20 2011 11:08 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
While taking the third does not open up any new attack routes per se, it does split your attention between the ramp at the front and the choke at the back, which prior to taking the third would both be funneled into the natural choke (thus making the fact that there are two paths somewhat moot at this point). Are you saying that since the third is so small this split attention does not matter since the army does not have to move very much? Wouldn't a surround of the third (with or without siege) still be somewhat riskier? Or are you saying that once you take your fourth, defending the third becomes too easy?

If an opponent is attacking from both your 4th base and from the ramp into your third, that's viable, but again we're talking about one army in once place defending from 2 directions-- it's more akin to a flank than a multi-prong attack. Multi-prong attacks by ground can't really happen until a 4th base is taken, which is very unusual for any map-- for better and for worse.

On October 20 2011 11:08 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
Also, it seems now that you are saying the opposite regarding holding the third and that the vulnerability from the tower is not overpowering (even if still very strong). Do you still think the tower should be moved/removed?

If every race had siege tanks, the third would certainly be more vulnerable. It's possible for the third to be too easy to defend AND to have a vulnerability that once race in particular is able to exploit. My observations about defending the third base come from playing some games of ZvP, where neither side has access to ground units with range comparable to a siege tank.

On October 20 2011 11:08 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
Why do you think another route should be opened to the third when you already think vision from the tower is so strong? The only other place to open up is behind the mineral line which is directly in front of the tower. Wouldn't this make the third too vulnerable since it could not only be sieged but entered from that side as well? Or are you saying that this should be done as a replacement for the watchtower? And if the watchtower goes, do you think some sort of vision between the two lanes is at all useful (like small unpathable slits in the wall where a ground unit could peak through at certain intervals)? Tbh, it didn't look like the towers came much into play for shenanigans in any of those three games.

I'd recommend rotating the mineral line somehow, or something. I'm not a map maker U_U so I don't really know what the solution is. Towers don't really come into play unless you have siege tanks, which is why in the ZvPs you can't really abuse them.


On October 20 2011 11:08 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
As for the making the bases less 4-gatey... what if... there were a ramp in the place where the current chokes are, but instead of being a single ramp, it were a double ramp. This double ramp configuration would be such that you go down and then back up to go from any one base to the next, so the bases still remain at the same level, but a small group of units would lose high ground vision briefly as they went from one base to the next. It forces the buildings to be at least six tiles away from the opposite side which means they could not be picked at by stalkers just from the opposing high ground, and a proxy pylon would either have to be somewhere in the natural or make it into your base -- you couldn't just sit the proxy in front of the gateway (assuming a standard wall-off configuration) and warp over the gateway into the base. Assuming this is a good idea, Would this be enough to make it less 4-gatey, or would the main ramp still have to be narrower to allow a single force field block?

Also, do you like this map better than my other map? You've played it a few times now, and you just looked at the other with the Very Easy AI. Do you have any aesthetic suggestions for a rooftop setting? What would you like to see that says "interesting roof" to you?


Being 4gatey in PvP isn't actually like a big problem-- you see maps that are 4gatey in professional play. It just makes PvP kind of lame. I don't know any mapmaking tricks to make maps less 4gatey, but the double ramp doesn't sound like a "tidy" solution. Have other people implemented tricks for this?
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 07:43:11
October 20 2011 06:43 GMT
#20
Version 1.2 uploaded to NA.
Version 1.3 uploaded to NA.
Changes:
~Main chokes (hopefully) made more PvP friendly -- 4-gate counter-measures:
-added ramps (down and up) between Main & Nat
-added 4 x 30 stacked 1 mineral patches to allow forcefield on a 3 width cardinal direction ramp (the minerals were too close to the natural and were affecting mining AI)
-added 2 x 2x2 destructible rocks to allow forcefield on a 3 width cardinal direction ramp (act as one unit damage wise, like around towers)
-added doodads to help fix the wierd corner pathing of the ramps
~Ramps/doodads also added to Nat-to-Third and Third-to-Fourth chokes (to keep style)
~Thirds moved over a couple tiles to allow a backdoor path that will allow for more harrassment and attack options
~Backdoor path also leads to fourth
~One extra 4x4 debris added to fix a cliff-walking pathing issue at the edge of the large ramp of the fourth when the debris had not been broken
~Xel'Naga towers on the wings moved toward the edge of the map, no longer seeing directly into the third, instead seeing all major path movement for that wing
~Middle islands shifted and given peeps holes (lings cannot get through)
~Textures still to be re-done after terrain changes (roof suggestions please!)

[image loading]

OP edit will come as soon...
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
October 20 2011 06:53 GMT
#21
Looks awesome! I'll get some people together to test this map out when I get the chance. The counter-4gate measures look interesting, as do the extra attack route into the third. Also, the xel naga towers don't spot the mineral line any more-- sweet. Seeing the natural backdoors as well looks good.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
October 20 2011 08:10 GMT
#22
3 more games, all PvP. The new system seems like 4gate is totally defendable-- FFs are possible, and there's no way to plant a pylon outside the base that warps into the main-- it's perfect. The double ramp looks pretty elegant and I think is a great solution.

I didn't get a chance to really look at the extra ramp into the 3rd, but the new tower placement seems solid.

Also, during one game the minerals were actually rocks for some reason. That was weird. Also, it seemed like it was super hard to mine out the minerals, or the mining didn't work from some side, or something--- it would show there was "1 minerals remaining" but it took a lot of time to mine. when the minerals were rocks they functioned normally.

http://drop.sc/45858
3 gate blink stalker -> archon chargelot vs robo rush -> colossi

http://drop.sc/45859
4 gate (defender's forcefield missed)

http://drop.sc/45860
4 gate (defender's forcefield missed) [on this try, the minerals were rocks for some reason?]

VoD:
http://www.twitch.tv/blazinghand/b/297903619
(The action doesn't start until like 10+ minutes in)
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 10:25:41
October 20 2011 09:51 GMT
#23
haha, my ninja update wasn't quite quick enough for you -- you got to play on v1.2 before the switch. Yeah, I had to switch the minerals for rocks because the mining at the natural was getting pulled to the ramp when you had like over ten workers -- that didn't seem like it should be a feature.

Edit1: About blink in that one game, you can get vision over the forcefield from the top of the opposite ramp, so as far as that goes it is not quite the same as a normal ramp. The ramp configuration is specifically to allow a stop to 4-gate aggression, not all aggression.

Edit2: lol about the mineral block... you won't have to worry about that any more with the change to rocks, but there were 30 stacked 1 mineral patches (so that mules do not just clear them really fast) so you could take 30 probes and mine each "patch" in one trip and they would all stack to mine.

Edit3: haha, no I wasn't watching the stream, I did my own testing after publishing and noticed the problem, and republished. I am watching the vod right now. Good guess though.
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25553 Posts
October 20 2011 10:15 GMT
#24
Yeah I mean the blinking in is fine-- the main thing is that the ramp stops 4gate and allows FFs, which it does. :D
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
HypertonicHydroponic
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
437 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-29 08:19:05
October 29 2011 07:39 GMT
#25
Minor OP update, updated Overview images; changes from the last update need to be made to the OP but they are not critical to the contest. ::: procrastination button pressed :::
[P] The Watery Archives -- http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=279070
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 56m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 151
ProTech112
SortOf 49
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 42785
Free 967
Leta 825
Soma 72
Noble 29
ToSsGirL 10
Dota 2
monkeys_forever284
NeuroSwarm116
XcaliburYe94
League of Legends
JimRising 507
Reynor112
Counter-Strike
fl0m1886
shoxiejesuss122
Other Games
summit1g17359
WinterStarcraft422
ceh9242
crisheroes194
C9.Mang0182
Happy83
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick628
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1320
• Stunt612
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
1h 56m
RSL Revival
1h 56m
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
3h 56m
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs Cure
Reynor vs TBD
WardiTV Korean Royale
3h 56m
PiGosaur Monday
16h 56m
RSL Revival
1d 1h
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
1d 3h
herO vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
2 days
[ Show More ]
IPSL
2 days
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
BSL 21
2 days
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
3 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
3 days
BSL 21
3 days
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
IPSL
3 days
Dewalt vs WolFix
eOnzErG vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
3 days
Wardi Open
4 days
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-07
Stellar Fest: Constellation Cup
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
SOOP Univ League 2025
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 3
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual

Upcoming

SLON Tour Season 2
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
META Madness #9
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.