|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0rXLr.jpg)
TPW Boraracay
154x154
16 bases (no gold)
4 Watchtowers
SEA server (may come up on NA/EU as well)
Philippine PRO Starcraft II League (PPSL) wanted to use a custom maps for IPL 4 Pacific Qualifiers, so they asked us to create a map named after the famous beach Boracay. After partnering with IGN they had to go with GSL maps instead, but I did see Tastosis casting a testgame on the map 
This map is basically a redesign of TPW Green Harvest which you may remember from MotM#7
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZbNH3.jpg)
Analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler [summary] ++ Show Spoiler [rush distance] +
Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
One geyser is within tank range. The rock formation in between blocks vision from both sides, so they should be at equal disadvantage.
Range display: + Show Spoiler +
|
Great map ! I love it !
Maybe the center of the map should be larger and only one xel naga in the middle too !
I would love to play on this map !
|
On November 07 2011 20:37 algue wrote:
Great map ! I love it !
Maybe the center of the map should be larger and only one xel naga in the middle too !
I would love to play on this map !
Thx. We tried with one tower in the center but decided 4 towers is more fun
The IPL4 test game I mentioned can be watched here. (edit: @37 min)
It´s a 5 min long PvP, but ... Tastosis casting !
|
Who made the custom beach hut? 
|
Why would you redesign this???
Green Harvest looked awesome!! This doesn't look half as good as GH did 
|
On November 07 2011 21:15 EatThePath wrote:Who made the custom beach hut?
I did - using Agria Underbrush: + Show Spoiler +
On November 07 2011 21:28 FlopTurnReaver wrote:Why would you redesign this??? Green Harvest looked awesome!! This doesn't look half as good as GH did
Well, we needed a tropical beach map ASAP, so we decided to take a tournament tested map, that was not used anymore.
Then we tested it some more, did some changes and beached it up. Green Harvest still exists tho
|
That beach hut is cute! Is that a custom model or just using other doodads to build one?
I'm not sure I like how the thirds are set up, though I like the map in general (liked the original too).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VlwCu.jpg)
Wonder how this map would play out if the bases 1,2, and 3 were on high ground, 4 & the surrounding ares were on mid ground, and 5 was on low ground (with a lone tower).
An unnecessary change but something fun to think about!
Still a good map regardless, and that little hut makes me smile!
|
I like that owning a watchtower doesnt give you vision of the other watchtowers, yet if the others are owned then going to get a watchtower will reveal that you own it. Will create battles in the middle over map vision.
(refering to the diagram above posted by eTcetRa)
Im worried someone in the bottom right against someone in the bottom left will be forced to take the "4" base as their third, as their natural third is so much closer.
Im sure that the thirds are not siegable from the high ground 4th's of the oposite player.
|
On November 08 2011 00:08 Gl!tch wrote:
Im sure that the thirds are not siegable from the high ground 4th's of the oposite player.
Posted image about that above
|
The choke between 4th and ccw third looks narrow. Maybe a bit too narrow?
Also you guys already have a beach map, one that actually looks fantastic.
|
I strongly dislike the Xel'naga Tower locations. In my opinion, since they are so close together and all accessible from one area (the low ground center), it will be too easy for one player to control all four of them at once. This gives that player all of the vision of the center and is just overpowered. You either have control of all four of the towers, or you have control of none of them. I think a single tower in the center would be better than the four you have in their current positions. You could raise all of them onto the high ground plateaus, that would make each one a but less accessible from one area.
The map is open in seemingly the wrong places. The natural and both thirds are really open, giving Protoss a disadvantage against Zerg in my opinion. The bases should be the more tight areas and the paths should be the more open ones. The chokes you have between the plateaus are nice and add a lot to decision making in movement, but you need to have some more chokes in the areas closer to where Terran and Zerg would be expanding. I'd recommend making some sort of obstruction in front of the low ground thirds, and maybe even the high ground thirds if necessary.
EDIT: Average openness = 4.11. This is way too open in general. I think 3.5 is a good number for that, 3.9 being like the highest you should go.
EDIT2: In a post from a different thread Barrin said the range was from 3.5 to 4.2, so I guess I'm wrong. I personally wouldn't go to 4.0 though.
I really like the beach house, that is very impressive. Also, the aesthetics are very unlike any type of beach map. I mean, you can tell it's a beach map, but it is certainly it's own type of beach map. Great job executing the aesthetic idea, but I believe that the gameplay may need some work.
Also, add more beach houses
|
I'm not sure I like the towers either for the reasons that antares says, but that's just one way of looking at it and I won't judge without playing it. One reason I do like the towers is that it promotes fighting over center control which really enlarges the map imo. Another reason is that the tower setup "increases" in the nat2nat by requiring you to go through the middle and hook into a tower unless you want the defender having perfect vision of your push and reinforcements (in adjacent positions).
|
i really dont like the high ground in front of the natural, thats gonna make terran 2 base pushes impossible to break as zerg
otherwise the aesthetics are really well done, and its got a pretty interesting layout
|
On November 08 2011 10:21 EcstatiC wrote:
i really dont like the high ground in front of the natural, thats gonna make terran 2 base pushes impossible to break as zerg
otherwise the aesthetics are really well done, and its got a pretty interesting layout
Thanks. I seen quite a few high level games on this ( -/Green Harvest), and Zergs didn´t seem to mind that high ground because the distance and architecture allows Zerg to intercept/flank those pushes. If Zerg survives the pressure they can benefit a lot from the wide open natural. I guess you can say that high ground helps Terran/Protoss a bit in an otherwise Zerg favored environment. The question is if it balances out enough to not be broken, but hey that can be said about most maps.
I prefer maps with small imbalances and exploits, as long as they even out each other. I won´t claim this was achieved 100%, but from what I´ve seen so far it´s pretty close. That´s what I do: create a map, inflict it on a lot of master players in a lot of test games, fix imba, rinse and repeat. In fact, that all I can do since my insight in the metagame is superficial compared to most people on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YkKaO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ORKNM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Vef5M.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IR8To.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YxZzG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SedxT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/22Hmj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Yunh8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U8QBa.jpg)
