Vanadium

160x160 - 14 bases (2 gold)

1 year ago everybody agreed that 4p maps had to be reflective symmetry, because rotational symmetry had positional imbalances in close positions. Then came Tal´Darim Altar, Terminus RE & Crevasse.
Since then general consensus has moved towards reflective symmetry being viable only with close spawns disabled.
I have heard so many times now; this & that doesn´t work/can´t be done/tried & failed; but then someone finds a way to make it work. I want to be the one to make this work.
I´ve gotten distances to work, now, what remains is getting the 3rd bases to be not awkward & weird.
Not there yet, but I´m getting closer.

Original text:+ Show Spoiler +

So, my friends on TPW map making team tell me that this map suckx and it´s a boring clone of Metalopolis/Shattered Temple etc.

I have tried a number of times to make a reflectional symmetry 4P map where all spawn positions are viable and have rush distances within current tournament standards.
I felt really good when I finished the current layout, as the rush distances are within my overall goals:
Cross positions slightly less than Tal´Darim ( 144 units nat2nat)
Close positions longer than 110 units ~ 30 seconds (this map: 115 ~ 32 seconds)

So, why don´t my friends like it?

winners gold: the center gold bases are close to each other
-this can be fixed if I close the middle choke
SW/NE 3rds: terrain around it is overly complicated
- really?

Analyzer images:

+ Show Spoiler [Summary] +

+ Show Spoiler [Shortest] +

I chose my best 2 MotM maps for the TL map competition; I need a 3rd map to complete my submission set. My other 2 MotM maps are way too big/experimental to have a chance so I need to finish one of my new maps.
I hope you can help me understand why this map sucks, and if you have ideas to make this map not suck, thanks in advance

.

[url=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=178008]My Map Thread

hobbidude

Canada171 Posts

October 29 2011 11:35 GMT

The options for thirds really do suck. I do like the differences with the layout in the top right and bottom left corners; the variation is nice but seems purposeless. The third when spawning close, ie behind the golds, seems fine. But those top right and bottom left corner...

My suggestion would be to place an optional third on the lowest cliff lvl by the nats and then reflect those corner bases around so the mins are on the inside towards the center; then maybe making them golds and on the highest cliff lvl kind of over looking the middle. But that might be too busy pumping that many bases in a small corner.

At the very least I don't think the corner bases should be on anything but the lowest cliff lvl, keep the tower location and layout the same, but put highground blocks instead of the destructible debris and make a hole with debris in the center between the two new pillars. Highground blocks will also provide nice locations for overlords to hide and overlook the nat. Just a couple tweeks needed then to make it smooth .I think this idea is much for useful and appropriate.

If you don't mind, send me the map file so i can explain the changes if my explanations aren't clear enough; it much easier to show in the editor than bmp anyday. No worries bout giving any credit, its just fun to tools around with ideas in the editor and help out a fellow mapper.

Ps i think closing the middle gap would be a great idea too as you already said; just continuing thous unique pillars into the center. Kind of making it xel caverns like with a small non-pathable area in the center for armys to circle around

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

October 29 2011 11:48 GMT

The thirds are just way too far away imo.

And middle gold bases almost always suck because middle bases = good for Terran; gold bases = very good for Terran -> middle gold bases = imba.
Also as you said they are winner bases, if someone has a good army advantage he can just sit at the gold base(s) in the middle with his big army and have a good position to defend and get aggressive while mining from a gold, which makes comebacks that much harder.
I don't agree with GSL removing all gold bases , but I don't like gold bases like this.

The tower positioning is neat

As others might have told you already, stop wasting your time with 4p mirrored. With close position I feel it's more about figuring out ANY way to make it work instead of making a map with good and interesting gameplay.

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

October 29 2011 12:20 GMT

I handed over the map file to hobbidude

I still hope to make this work and ship it for the contests.

Only 2 glaring issues: golds & SW/NE 3rds. Not unfixable imo.

So many awesome 4P rotationals out there, I don´t think I have more to offer there (except maybe a fixed Green Harvest), and I already have 2 good 2P, so that leaves this map.

Thanks for your comments.

Archvil3

Denmark989 Posts

October 29 2011 12:53 GMT

I am not convinsed about the winners gold. I mean the term seems to be thrown out every time there is an opertunity for it these days. Antiga Shipyard for example, looks like the biggest winners gold in history but I find it that more games it plays out like a high risk expansion rather then a winners gold. On the other hand Backwater gulch had absolute winners gold. My point being the close central placed golds does not neccesarily equal winners gold. As you said yourself closing the center would surely rule it out but even with an open center I think it could work as jsut a high risk expansion. I think I am positive about the golds even if unchanged to be honest.

SW/NE 3rds: terrain around it is overly complicated
- really?

Well yes. I mean I am lazy so when I open a mapthread for the first time I go straight for the pictures and before reading anything my first thought of the map was "hmm what is going on in the corners there?". So they may be on to something. It is not complicated though, at a further look it looks rather simple. It doesnt have that easy first time recognizion. I thin it is a good quality of a map if you can look at it for the first time and right away get an idea of it. I think it will play well though and I dont see a problem even though I think it is possible to rework it and come up with something that is more recognizeable and evenly functional at the same time.

As for thirds, the size of the map leads to 3rds being a bit distant. Thats just the general problem with 4p reflection symetri maps. You could add more bases so the distance would be shorter but then bases all around would be too close to each other. You could also shrink the map but then we would be looking at another metalopolis or shattered temple. I am not sure what the best solution for this is. I would love to see the game balance change to make this style more viable. 4p 12b rotational symetry maps like the recently posted twilight peaks and deadalus suffers from the same problem with the 3rds. 4p reflection symetry got 3rd base issues and it comes down to the game design that just limits these types of maps.

For this style of maps this is well executed but it is really tricky to make it fit with the current game design.

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

November 06 2011 16:42 GMT

Updated OP (overview+analyzer shots).

Did some changes:

Put rock in center gap.
Redesigned NW/SE 3rds.
Moved gold bases farther apart.
+ Show Spoiler +

Here are two replays, both about 22 minutes featuring masters (Protoss player is normally Terran

)

TvP close positions
ZvP close positions

Plz take a look at the replays. Close positions won´t tell us all that much about the weird 3rds, however the low ground around it is battle zone when spawning close, so