In-Game Description: Two player map where using the terrain will be critical to your success. As the game progresses, your forces should move up the map - but don't forget about sneaky counter attacks using the low ground!
Introduction/Inspiration: Despite the comparison, Rise of Valkyries was not an inspiration, as I didn't play broodwar nearly enough to even know how to play, let alone know the hundreds of maps. The concept of expanding upward simply came to me after drawing map layouts on paper for quite some time. Though, my biggest inspiration was the layout of the main, natural, and 3rd of Metalopolis, as the 3rd isn't nestled up against the main. Took that idea and applied it to a 2 player map. Of course there is much variation, but it was the only layout that would fit the concept of expanding upward.
Pictures (Aesthetics):
Data (Aesthetics): Texture Set: Bel'Shir Dirt Light Bel'Shir Dirt Dark Bel'Shir Grass Light Monlyth Dunes Xil Sand Xil Dirt Rocky Xil Dirt Mienhoff Sand Dunes
Data (Gameplay): Playable Bounds: 134x137 Main Choke <-> Main Choke Distance(s): 35 in in-game seconds Nat Choke <-> Nat Choke Distance(s): 20 in in-game seconds Mineral/Gas Counts: + Show Spoiler +
All standard bases are 8 blue mineral patches 2 vespene gyser layouts with the exception of the high yields, which are 6 mineral patches with 2 vespene gysers.
Would also like to mention that without being on a mapmaking team at the time of creating Haven Lagoons, mostly all of my valuable feedback came from NA friends Munk (Master Zerg), Lonelyhat (Master Zerg, but plays other races at a high diamond/low master level), and Jamileon (Master Protoss) :D
EDIT: Edited for newest version. Pages 1&2 of this thread discuss V1.3 and V1.4, which you can see below.
Havens Lagoon (1.3) Made by: Timetwister22 Published on: [NA][EU][SEA]
In-Game Description: Two player map where using the terrain will be critical to your success. As the game progresses, your forces should move up the map - but don't forget about sneaky counter attacks using the low ground!
Introduction/Inspiration: Despite the comparison, Rise of Valkyries was not an inspiration, as I didn't play broodwar nearly enough to even know how to play, let alone know the hundreds of maps. The concept of expanding upward simply came to me after drawing map layouts on paper for quite some time. Though, my biggest inspiration was the layout of the main, natural, and 3rd of Metalopolis, as the 3rd isn't nestled up against the main. Took that idea and applied it to a 2 player map. Of course there is much variation, but it was the only layout that would fit the concept of expanding upward.
Pictures (Aesthetics):
Data (Aesthetics): Texture Set: Bel'Shir Dirt Light Bel'Shir Dirt Dark Bel'Shir Grass Light Monlyth Dunes Xil Sand Xil Dirt Rocky Xil Dirt Mienhoff Sand Dunes
Cliff Type: Bel'Shir Organic Cliffs
Pictures (Gameplay): My analyzer isn't working, I'll get this up as soon as I can [Angled Overview]
Data (Gameplay): Playable Bounds: 134x137 Main Choke <-> Main Choke Distance(s): 35 in in-game seconds Nat Choke <-> Nat Choke Distance(s): 20 in in-game seconds Mineral/Gas Counts: All standard bases are 8 blue mineral patches 2 vespene gyser layouts with the exception of the high yields, which are 6 mineral patches with 2 vespene gysers.
Comments: Many tend to believe this map is highly unfavorable for protoss, and slightly favors zerg. However I feel it just forces a different style of play. We'll see what the map has to offer in the TLopen.
Would also like to mention that without being on a mapmaking team at the time of creating Haven Lagoons, mostly all of my valuable feedback came from NA friends Munk (Master Zerg), Lonelyhat (Master Zerg, but plays other races at a high diamond/low master level), and Jamileon (Master Protoss) :D
Whoa. You've been working hard on the aesthetics a lot. The map looks much prettier. I really like how you use the arch rock doodads, they look interesting.
I find the location of the gold expansion interesting. I would have placed it where the other expansion in between the mains is because each player would have a higher influence on that location. The path it exists on would see more action and the base would in general be more difficult to expand to and defend and very accessible by both players. It's also revealed by the Xel'naga Tower and can be easily harassed by air. I think that that expansion should be gold and the one at the 9 o'clock should be a normal expansion.
The natural is very open. Because of its openness, a lot of openers for Terran Protoss that rely on fast expands are made much more risky than they would be normally. In general, I enjoy watching games and playing games on maps that are extremely flexible and allow many builds to be possible. You will want to read this thread on spectator value if you have not already. I overall feel that the choke to the natural should be made tighter to make fast expands more viable for Terran and Protoss.
The layout of your map clearly resembles Ride of Valkyries from Brood War. They both have use the same style of symmetry, which isn't used in many maps. Usually this type of symmetry yields a close air distance and expansions that are far away from both players. Like on Ride of Valkyries, players can always expand away from your opponent. The third, fourth, and maybe even fifth expansions are fairly far away from your opponent and have a good amount of distance from one another. This means that an enemy player with a death ball will not be able to steamroll through multiple expansions as efficiently as if they were placed together because the ball with have to travel from point A to point B. The death ball will also be extremely out of position; if a counter-attack occurred, the natural would be in a lot of trouble, and since the natural is right next to the main, that player will win the base race if he is ahead on expansions because of how close the two bases are. This gives the expansions their own kind of security. The bases will be harassed, but almost never directly attack with an entire army because of how out of position the army would be. Also, none of these expansions can be dropped. There are no cliffs by any of these expansions. There probably should be so that these expansions are not as easy to expand to. I think that a cliff behind the intended third would be a good addition, and maybe even one behind the base labeled as the fifth expansion, but I'm not so sure one is necessary there.
Overall, Haven's Lagoon is very open. There are no significant chokes other than the ramp of the main into the natural. The natural doesn't have a choke, and all of the ramps on the map are very wide. An analyzer image would help a lot for determining balanced proportions. They have an average openness feature which is pretty awesome and extremely helpful. The openness of the natural and other expansions, combined with the reasons I've stated above about their low risk, put Zerg at an extremely large advantage over Protoss and a less large advantage over Terran. This thread on base vulnerabilities would be worth your while as a nice read as well. I think that the obstructions outside of the naturals and in front of the gold expansion should be made larger and that some of the ramps should be shrunk, specifically the ones into the third and the ones that lead to the Xel'naga Tower, to make the map less open.
This suggestion is a bit extreme, but if the Protoss death ball gets out of position too much, then maybe the height of the map should be shrunk. This should be a last resort if everything else fails.
I'd like to apologize for my immature behavior about the results of the TL map contest. I meant no offense to you as a map maker and am always happy to see more and more people delve into the community, especially those willing to improve, and your aesthetic update has convinced me that you are one of those people. What bothered me was that the judges picked your map over some other quality maps that I would have rather seen as finalists, and I am sorry for funneling my anger out on the map. I'd also like to mention that this map is so much better than my first SCII map. I was also really really really excited for the competition and viewed it as something that would bring community maps into the spotlight, which only fueled my disappointment at the results.
Congratulations on Haven's Lagoon being a finalist, and good luck with the competition!
Ah, nice work on the visuals, I'm glad too see where you took some of your inspiration from Last thing you probably need to do now is find the analyzer and see what it says about your map. In general you want an average openness between 3.90 and 4.15 give or take. If your map is too open you can make it more chokey by adding cliffs in strategic places, or by filling out some parts of the map with unpalatable doodads, like trees, rocks etc. The trick is to know when to use cliffs and when to use doodads, but that comes with time.
Anyway congrats again on making the final 7 and looking forward to seeing how your map progresses.
IMO should change contested 6th base to gold base and change contested 6th to a semi-island with 1 gas (high yield)... Just my opinion, but otherwise looks good. Might be problematic for Terran/Toss to hold natural and 3rd without expanding to center though.
One small thing that makes me very happy is that both of the mains are on the right side of the map. It's *really really* nice to not worry about addons screwing up your sim city. I wish that was something that all 2 player maps featured.
I can see how people would say that this is a Zerg-favored map. But there's a lot of other good things going for it. The low ground expo with the WT kissing it saves TvZ. It's a perfect position for a planetary, just like the rocked gold on XNC. However because the expo is more open (both to ground and air) it's not nearly as imbalanced.
Another thing not immediately obvious is that the 3rds and 4ths, as well as 5ths and gold, are REALLY close together. If you drop (or warpin) at one expo with a bunch of static defense, then it is soooo easy to waltz over and hit another expo instead. So spines, spores, cannons, and PFs (except for the low ground expo) all kinda suck on this map. Which I think is a good thing, because it makes it difficult to turtle beyond 1 base, and it rewards multitasking.
I'm curious why so many people think the map is bad for Protoss. I would agree that the tough third makes it difficult to pull off the standard 3 base collossi into HT build. And the lack of chokes sucks for forcefield. But the map's lack of WTs really hurts Zerg with respect to spotting warp-ins. The pockets outside the main opposite of the ramps are perfectly sized for high ground warpins and Stargate play. And all the different map levels make it super easy to hide proxy pylons. Cliff walking Collosi can absolutely murder the 4th expos. The open naturals are kinda bad for PvZ forge builds, but it's also really good against every Terran fast expand.
It only takes three 3x3 buildings to wall off 3rd. Ramp width has been decreased from 4 to 3, and the minerals have been moved slightly closer to ramp for shorter distance.
Small change, but a change nevertheless. Curtain has been added to the extended land that wraps around main to make room for other uses than just robo blink in PvP, which was its original purpose.
1. no protoss will use that wall off, it is fine atm 2. 3 3x3 is okay, not particularly necessary but won't change much. The width decrease on the ramp I don't understand - can you elaborate on why you want that changed? 3. Seems good. 4. Indifferent!
On November 11 2011 18:30 Plexa wrote: 1. no protoss will use that wall off.
I play protoss and I sure will.
The changes are good but they dont fix all problems.
It's a bad wall because 1) two attack paths = twice the number of cannons you need to defend all ins 2) Exposes your cycore, a lot (no one will build the 2nd gate) 3) Requires 2 pylons to complete - roach timings will hit around then and you're stuffed 4) Can only wall off one entrance in time for standard speedpool ling prod
By the time you get that wall up, most of the builds that you want to wall off against are no longer a threat
Is there a reason you put both gas on the natural to the left side?? Seems to be very vulnarable to air play... and can you show a picture with a wall off from the main ramp to nexus??
Have you tested this for lag issues? There is a lot of mist/fog doodads used in the air-areas along the map borders. Might be worth to check out before the map is used in high level tournament play. The same goes for the water areas and those with a lot of trees.
On November 12 2011 01:45 Venomsflame wrote: It's cute, but not really balanced at all. Congrats on the competition though.
What parts of the map make it an imbalanced one?
The third is pretty far, and to make it worse, the expansion patter there is a straight line, meaning defending vs air, especially muta will be about impossible as protoss.
I'm just curious why people are complaining about the "openness" of this maps natural. I mean the distance from the ramp to the natural is so small. I think its only 5 squares..... so for the tosses out there who claim you cant FFE on this map i ask you. "Whu.....? why the hell not? you can FFE on metal and that natural is far more open than on this map."
Also, @ Time, i don't think making that ramp smaller, and the flat "choke" into the 3rd smaller is necessary. You can make one or the other smaller, but making them both smaller is not needed IMO. People should not be able to get a "free" expo.
One last thing to all the haters out there. Please go play this map before you decide to super theory craft about how IMBA it is. Its easy to look at something and be like, dam that shits broken, the expos are way too far away. Go play the map a few times then make a decision. Its nice playing on something new, and not the same old routine layout of a map.
Whether walling of the natural as described is a good idea or not, the 3 width is the width of 1ff, meaning keeping a sentry on the high ground can ff lings, hellions, and early marine pushes in half or away all together while only using 1 ff.
As for the ramp at the 3rd, I felt while playing on this map, that my 3rd was too open by just walking up the ramp, as if walling of the choke to the 4th didnt do much. Also, before your 3rd has been taken, it would be easier to hold flanks coming down that ramp as it would use less ff, which always helps at that point in the game.
Though, as I diamond scrub, I could be wrong :p
Also, as asked, here are pictures walling of the natural. + Show Spoiler +
With complaints about the 3rd being so far, I set out to see just how far way the 3rd was form the natural compared to ladder maps with simialr layouts, as in, no 3rd nestled against the main. I did so by placing a nexus at both natural and 3rd, and timed how long it took a probe to go from nexus to nexus. These were the results measured with in game seconds.
It seems as if 6 of 8 current ladder maps have either the same or longer distance between thirds compared to Havens Lagoon, alongside having the same similarity as air harass exposure. Considering all 6 of those maps have a similar natural 3rd layout to Havens, this leads to a few possible conclusions. Either all 6 of these maps are imbalanced for toss, Havens Lagoon is fine, or I'm missing something which is very possible.
On a side note, I expected to see Havens Lagoon above all ladder maps, simply because it did look longer. The original plan to this experiment was to see how much longer the 3rd was form the natural compared to ladder maps, then propose solutions. However, the numbers say it's right on the money when comparing to current ladder maps. So, I feel it's fine as it is.
EDIT: As some posts below this one have pointed out, this only measures how easy the 3rd is to take, not how easy it is to hold. As a result, I'm looking for ways to make it easier to hold. Mostly likely solution will be to move the entrance from the 4th to the 3rd closer to the ramp, thus taking less time to get to the third and defend.
On November 12 2011 07:29 Timetwister22 wrote: With complaints about the 3rd being so far, I set out to see just how far way the 3rd was form the natural compared to ladder maps with simialr layouts, as in, no 3rd nestled against the main. I did so by placing a nexus at both natural and 3rd, and timed how long it took a probe to go from nexus to nexus. These were the results measured with in game seconds.
It seems as if 6 of 8 current ladder maps have either the same or longer distance between thirds compared to Havens Lagoon, alongside having the same similarity as air harass exposure. Considering all 5 of those maps have a similar natural 3rd layout to Havens, this leads to a few possible conclusions. Either all 5 of these maps are imbalanced for toss, Havens Lagoon is fine, or I'm missing something which is very possible.
On a side note, I expected to see Havens Lagoon above all ladder maps, simply because it did look longer. The original plan to this experiment was to see how much longer the 3rd was form the natural compared to ladder maps, then propose solutions. However, the numbers say it's right on the money when comparing to current ladder maps. So, I feel it's fine as it is.
I think a slightly more useful metric would be the length of the smallest line of defence, or the shortest line that a defending army would have to defend in order to stop all ground entry points into the main-nat-third
for example on metalopolis the defender would have to defend along the red line to protect both the natural and third + Show Spoiler +
and on your map, the defender you have to defend along the entire length of the red line to protect the natural and third simultanteously + Show Spoiler +
so if you send the probe from one endpoint of the line to the other, it will give a more accurate representation of how "hard" it is to defend those bases in my opinion.
at any rate, the results you have are valuable and show that people are overreacting about the distance to the third imo.
Roughly, what you measured time was how easy it is to take. Roughly, what namrufus measured is how hard it is to keep.
I agree with poster above me that you should only narrow one of the entrances to the 3rd. It's not about the chokes entering it so much as the army positioning required to quickly pivot between the nat and 3rd. For example in PvZ, if you wanted to be ready to respond immediately to either site, you'd have to stand in the middle of open ground at the bottom of the ramp. If you stay at the 3rd with your army, it's still rather open and somewhat scary with the two entrances the way they were originally. Compare that to Tal'Darim Altar where the nat-3rd path is safely narrow (for PvZ) and the outer-facing entrance is wide, so typically protoss wall off with 4 gateways there.
The 3rd on this map is very comparable to other ladder maps where protoss wall off with gateways (like metal) although there are differences in how map control effects the vulnerability. Ling muta will be very strong, but the metagame is changing to curtail that anyway.
I don't like the new narrowness of the natural choke against the main cliff. It's not that bad but I'd prefer just rotating the whole arc of the entrance towards the 3rd instead of tightening one side. It's not viable to do a standard FFE wall at two chokes that a single pylon can't reach. It's very possible other builds could wall the chokes in that way.
Incidentally, when I was trying to come up with a good FFE building plan, I found that it'd be much easier to wall ramp-nexus if the natural spot was one square farther in the N/S direction. This is because if you place a pylon by the end of the mineral line, you can't fit a forge and gateway in the power because the nexus is too close. If you move the pylon over to accomodate, your cannon will make a really awkward block into your own minerals. I'll make a picture later, I realize that'd just be easier.
I'm going to keep trying out the PvZ features in earnest. I think fixing the 3rd for PvZ will incrementally harm the integrity of the map, and those problems stem from the matchup dynamics. On many maps pro protoss players feel forced to 2base all in much of the time because taking a 3rd is very difficult. Players like hero are trying out wild strategies to make zerg uncomfortable in unfamiliar ways (usually at earlier timings). I think players will gravitate towards "forcing" hydras to avoid muta games. Overall, this map exhibits a lot of characteristics that make taking a 3rd in PvZ hard, but it is not clear it's impossible to come up with a good plan.
And, if the game gets past that crucial turning point, the 4th base is very advantageously placed for protoss imo.
Your changes reflect willingness to bend in the direction of general improvement though, and for that I applaud you. Hopefully you can get enough solid feedback from testing to make the best possible adjustments to accommodate the current metagame problems in PvZ.
So I've been messing around with the map, and I made some changes I thought I'd share. They are unofficial as of now, and depending on feedback, they may or may not become official. + Show Spoiler +
-As shown below, I moved over the entrance to the 3rd 4 tiles to the right, with the intent to make it easier for protoss to defend both 3rd and natural by just sitting at the bottom of the ramp to their 3rd. -As a result however, the left gas in the 4th was literally right in the middle of the path, so the 4th too was pushed over a bit so the gas was no longer directly in the way. -However, this narrowed the path between the island and the cliff of the 4th to just 3 forcefields, which is a bit too narrow. Thus I had to move the island to the right as well, while maintaining the natural choke. The picture lies, primarily cause I suck with drawing with a mouse. It is the same as the previous width. -The choke between the island and the main cliff has been narrowed to 1 forcefield, to once more help protoss out with defending their natural.
Congrats on making a sort of underdog map, showing everyone that anyone can get their maps known. On an aesthetic note, I really like the improvements that have been made to the textures, but there's still a small bump for me, if this ends up being a ladder map. As a beach map, the shapes of a lot of land looks too geometric, and not as natural as it could be. It's a simple fix, and definitely something you(and by you I mean all of us) refine as you make more and more maps, so keep it in mind. Examine Blizzard maps, and other maps(like Ohana), and you'll see it.
Overall though, the map looks cool, and seems to embody fun of play over strict balance. GJ
On November 11 2011 18:22 Timetwister22 wrote: After getting some feedback, I've made some changes. These are not published in the TLMC version yet, so let me know what you think.
It only takes three 3x3 buildings to wall off 3rd. Ramp width has been decreased from 4 to 3, and the minerals have been moved slightly closer to ramp for shorter distance.
Small change, but a change nevertheless. Curtain has been added to the extended land that wraps around main to make room for other uses than just robo blink in PvP, which was its original purpose.
1. I don't like the tightened choke at the natural. Most forge expands need to place the cannons between the natural and the ramp, and the exit from the natural to the third. So cannons wouldn't be able to cover any wall off up at that choke anyway. I think the only thing this change does is make it easier in ZvX to defend against 4gate/2Rax with spinecrawlers...and this map is already plenty Zerg-friendly. The natural's choke was fine the way it is. Metal, Xelnaga, and to lesser extent Tal'Darim all have naturals that are equally exposed, but are still fine in PvZ due to other architecture. I think more people are worried about the 3rd in ZvX than the natural.
2. The ramp fix is good. But the first choke fix, the 3x3 narrowing, is bad imo. Because again, the choke is too far from the Nexus to wall effectively. I think your second idea about how to fix the third's choke is much better. Just shift the 3rd-4th passageway a couple pixels to the east instead. It is unfortunate the that will also force the 4th and island to change. But I don't like the "also shift to the east" solution because that makes it super easy to snipe the 4th's geysers from the bottom of both ramps. Why not simply move the fourth's southern geyser to the north as well? That would make it so you only need to defend one ramp to hold the geysers, not two, and it would eliminate the blockage in the 3rd-4th passageway.
As I mentioned above this is why it's awkward to wall ramp-->nexus and could be averted by scooting the natural back one square:
Can't do forge + gateway with this pylon placement.
The cannon really constricts the space if the pylon is placed to allow forge + gateway. Archons can't get in or out. This is a problem with the walloff you posted earlier.
It's not a huge issue but it'd be nice if walling was more straightforward.
Regarding changes, why not shift the 3rd and ramp over only 2 squares, not 4, and then add a little to the left side of the tree clump, or a dot-sized additional tree-clump to break up the space? Just ideas. I think 4 squares might be moving it too far, it begins to clump bases into a 4base pod and isolates the left side of the map.
I played the map yesterday and I have to say it's really a pleasant map to play! So congratz about it... (actually I hope you will win! I feel this map is by far more original than others - which are great nonetheless).
My only negative impression though (and maybe I am the only one who experienced that) is that it's kind of dark. I don't know if it's just me being tired yesterday, but I had the impression there was not enough light on it
good luck for the second part of the contest!
EDIT: previous screenshots confirm my impression ; but there may be a hidden reason I ignore to that (I am no map maker at all!).
Like to start off and say I was definitely one of those people when I first saw that map pretty much judged it immediately and didn't really care for it. I ended up playing 2 games on it tonight and it actually wasn't that bad at all. I still think the 3rd is a little too far away though, like many others have said. Yes, you can do the 3 3x3 buildings to wall off the third to make it a little more safe but it's still a super long way to have to defend it all.
Also, the other thing I'm unsure of is the base directly in the middle. It seems like quite the pointless base because the only race that could ever stand a chance to hold that base would be a terran and only if they could get a pfort up on it, but still it's so close to the opponent that even with a pfort it'd be extremely difficult and dangerous to hold. I'm wondering how it'd be if you removed that base, and added a very small highground area kind of where that base was. Could maybe even add another watchtower up on that highground piece. It'd allow some vision of the middle of the map, possibly have vision of the other watchtower, and would give some vision of the air space in between the mains.
That or take the base out but just add some LoS blockers through out that whole path. Since it is the fastest way to get to your enemy base, why not make it also a little more dangerous by adding LoS blockers.
This of course is all random thoughts that popped in my head during these 2 games I played, so take them as you will.
On November 12 2011 18:20 SidianTheBard wrote: Also, the other thing I'm unsure of is the base directly in the middle. It seems like quite the pointless base because the only race that could ever stand a chance to hold that base would be a terran and only if they could get a pfort up on it, but still it's so close to the opponent that even with a pfort it'd be extremely difficult and dangerous to hold. I'm wondering how it'd be if you removed that base, and added a very small highground area kind of where that base was. Could maybe even add another watchtower up on that highground piece. It'd allow some vision of the middle of the map, possibly have vision of the other watchtower, and would give some vision of the air space in between the mains.
You're right, the only race that stands a chance at holding that expo is Terran. But that expo is very key to making lategame TvX balanced on this map. Protoss can defend their 5th+6th just fine against harass with warpin and cannons. And Zerg are fine because all their expos are production facilities.
However because all new Terran units need to walk from the main+natural, it's very tough to defend "natural" 5th+6th without holding at least three ramps and also idling a ton of supply there. That's why Terran needs that low ground expo. Yeah that expo has many vulnerablities, but it is blessedly close to our production facilities, which is a big deal for us. And should PvZ ever evolve into lategame Stargate, it would make a big deal for the Protoss player too.
On November 12 2011 16:56 Timetwister22 wrote: Also, what would be wrong with say, this wall off? + Show Spoiler +
The only problem with that walloff is that banelings targeted on the upper left corner of the cannon would also blow up the pylon, which makes it infinitely more difficult to re-wall even if you crush the first bust.
(Baneling splash has 2.2 radius which is just barely enough)
I played the map a bit more today and I like almost all the changes. The fixes to the 3rd+4th in particular helped alot.
However, the curtains blocking off the pockets between the mains need to go. That part of the map is waaaay too good for cliff abusing in TvZ. There's literally no way for Zerg to kill Siege Tanks or Hellions dropped inside the pocket except by air.
I do like that the deep pocket is there because it sets up some interesting Blink, Reaper, Siege, Drop, and proxy plays. But I don't think the pockets need extra terrain to make holding that area of the map even more powerful. Just remove the curtains so short range units can effectively interrupt an elevator.
Another thing I noticed is that the central Watchtower has vision of the low ground expo's gasses. That's bad because a single siege tank at that tower can deny both gasses from 13 range plus a ramp away. =P You might want to move the tower west like 1 or 2 squares just so it loses vision of the geysers.
The only thing I think this map is missing right now is another Xel'naga tower at the top level. I really enjoy fighting over the level 2 Xel'naga tower when the game goes to base 3 and 4, and it would be awesome if that could continue when the game goes to bases 5 and 6. Making it so one Xel'naga tower can see the other one would add an interesting dynamic as well.
Another thing I noticed is that the central Watchtower has vision of the low ground expo's gasses. That's bad because a single siege tank at that tower can deny both gasses from 13 range plus a ramp away. =P You might want to move the tower west like 1 or 2 squares just so it loses vision of the geysers.
I did notice how the watch tower overlooked the gases, however the tower has 22 range, a tank only has 14. Another point, unless someone just randomly takes those gases, you'd think the tank would be attacking the base itself, not the gases. This was done on purpose, to make that base more vulnerable.
On November 13 2011 18:19 Modernist wrote: Great map!
One complaint: sooooooo much air space around the edges!
If you're judging by the picture, it lies. In game, its much better. If you're judging from in game, then not sure what to say. I think its perfectly fine, though I appreciate the feedback
Do not be deceived by the map borders. That is actually one of the pinpoints, and most crucial elements of map-making. The map borders are not actually that wide while playing in-game because the playable bounds are near the bases themselves. The extended map borders (with aesthetics) are only there to prevent black borders from showing up in-game which look terribly sloppy.
I'm partial to multi-level water which is severely lacking in maps out there, so I vote for 2. If you do that, you should also add a falls at the upper lake, the spring where the water comes out of the ground and starts the flow to the ocean. Otherwise you have a random lake uphill from the flow. And who doesn't like more waterfalls? ^^
Just updated for 1.5 which was an aesthetics update. Only physical map change was the removal of the experimental curtain on the extended land mass that wraps around the main.
The only part of this map that I find difficult strategically is the late-game with the single xel'naga tower in the center. Once someone holds that position (especially a terran w/ siege tanks), it seems that defending the forward 4th base is difficult since the opposing forces will have to split up to defend the two ramps (note that the tower is *very* close to the minerals at the fourths). Additionally, since the low-ground counter attack path is on the low ground, it is especially easy to shut down counter attacks with siege tank fire from the high ground. Also, with *HUGE* margin space around the edge of the maps, and relatively close-by-air mains, I would expect alot of drop play on this map.
I think a possible solution could be to simply remove the xel'naga watchtower, not every map has to have one, even though it is the trend, or two watchtowers, one on each side of the map.
Picture included for your viewing pleasure! (I love to draw ) + Show Spoiler +
Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke).
Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent.
So main to main distance is not really important at all.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke).
Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent.
So main to main distance is not really important at all.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke).
Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent.
So main to main distance is not really important at all.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke).
Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent.
So main to main distance is not really important at all.
Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main.
Not actually true at all.
I think he means (2 *(mainToPersonalNat) + natToNat) or (2*(main2nat) - nat2nat).
He IS right that the two are directly related. Main2Nat(opponent) is correlated to what the main2main is (obviously). main2main and nat2nat are just different ways of measuring the same information.
139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke).
Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent.
So main to main distance is not really important at all.
Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main.
Not actually true at all.
I think he means (2 *(mainToPersonalNat) + natToNat) or (2*(main2nat) - nat2nat).
He IS right that the two are directly related. Main2Nat(opponent) is correlated to what the main2main is (obviously). main2main and nat2nat are just different ways of measuring the same information.
139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
If you looked at an analyzer picture (example in this OP), you would see that all main to main paths dont go trough the natural bases.
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote: Rush distance is too short. Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke).
Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent.
So main to main distance is not really important at all.
Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main.
Not actually true at all.
I think he means (2 *(mainToPersonalNat) + natToNat) or (2*(main2nat) - nat2nat).
He IS right that the two are directly related. Main2Nat(opponent) is correlated to what the main2main is (obviously). main2main and nat2nat are just different ways of measuring the same information.
139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
If you looked at an analyzer picture (example in this OP), you would see that all main to main paths dont go trough the natural bases.
Touche.
I guess I overlooked the fact that the natural isn't necessarily (or even generally) on the main2main path. In any case, the main2main is still pretty short and should be extended. It's called rush distance for a reason.
139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
Where 139 is short, keep in mind that the analyzer is judging that by going through the narrow entrance to the natural with the high ground of the main beside it. Sticking a marine or stalker on the high ground can deny any scout coming through, and the small entrance plus the high ground gives the defender an advantage when engaging there. The other entrance which is further also isn't very open, and the defender can utilize the narrow entrance for flanks. Thus, Havens is much different than Steppes of War since the natural is easier to defend.
139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
Where 139 is short, keep in mind that the analyzer is judging that by going through the narrow entrance to the natural with the high ground of the main beside it. Sticking a marine or stalker on the high ground can deny any scout coming through, and the small entrance plus the high ground gives the defender an advantage when engaging there. The other entrance which is further also isn't very open, and the defender can utilize the narrow entrance for flanks. Thus, Havens is much different than Steppes of War since the natural is easier to defend.
Sounds good, as long as it's a conscious design decision and not an overlooked error.
The distance an attacking army has to travel is much greater than for the defending army.
Some of you may remember the back door rocks on Blistering sands were such a problem for the exact opposite reason. The two places you could apply pressure on a 2 base opponent were much closer for the attacker than the defender thus giving 1 base play an advantage.
I feel this map encourages at least 3 base play which is awesome. Again i apologize if this was super obvious and that's why no one pointed it out.
On December 04 2011 22:43 Barrin wrote: You probably saw me say my personal acceptable openness ranges are from 3.5 to 4.2. This map having 4.04 openness you probably thought you were will within (my) acceptable range; this contradicting what I said before the analyzer images were posting where I predicted the openness to be "unprecedented" and I think "astronomical".
You got me! ^^ Actually no you didn't (sorry hehe ^^). I should have been more clear.
The concept I'm talking about in this post can actually be extrapolated into a large scale.
- Me, 13 months ago in the previously linked thread.
Basically what I meant here is that the dots don't have to be small for the syndrome to still take effect. However, larger dots are definitely better than smaller dots. The larger the dot the better. There's a bunch of large dots here (though I would call at least 4 of them smaller dots).
I don't know if I ever said it anywhere, but the best way to turn a dot into a non-dot is to connect it with the edge of the map air space. Kinda like you see here: + Show Spoiler +
Connecting it to the edge like that also happens to be the cure for bitty dot syndrome... but really only if the "dot" (read: line) that's connected to is big. By the way, rocks are one way to connect a dot to the edge of the map (and if done right is almost always enough to cure minor bitty dot syndrome, unfortunately this is severe bitty dot syndrome).
You might notice that the main-nat has these dots (lines) that connect to the edge. Literally every map has this though, so that's not really good enough (~).
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that dimfish, the sole creator of the analyzer, agreed with me about the bitty dot syndrome (he called it the bitty dot openness problem) before I even made the previously linked post (he actually made a post about it on his sc2mapster page a week before I made my post, but I never saw his until after I made mine). He proposed a new calculation of openness that would basically ignore the bitty dot syndrome, he called it "Playable Density". Perhaps I was wrong about the Average Openness being astronomical and unprecedented, but I would put my reputation on the line to claim that the Playable Density is well on it's way to being that bad.
I think Playable Density would be so much better to put a range of acceptability on.
Anyways, all that said, this map isn't nearly as imbalanced because of the openness as I thought it was at first (though I'm not convinced it's completely better).
You're doing better than many mapmakers though so don't worry. Keep it up!
Where I suppose these are Bitty Dots, I'm confused as to why they matter on this map. Most of the Bitty Dots are connected to one another by ramps, giving a height advantage to those atop the ramps. Thus, most would prefer not to engage with your opponent having a height advantage on you, therefore forcing most would-be engagements to happen later in more open/flat ground, or not to happen at all. This is seen in the countless games played on Metalopolis, with the high ground the golds reside on. If the golds were on the lower ground, and the Bitty Dots created by the cliffs were doodads or a pitfall instead, you would see a lot more engagements in the areas where the ramps are. However, due to the ramps giving a height advantage, most engagements happen entirely on the low ground or entirely on the high ground due to the high ground advantage, despite the ramps being wide.
Therefore, the only Bitty Dots that you are engaging around, on Havens Lagoon, in a single engagement as shown in your 28x28 map example, are the ones in front of the natural and the small one in front of the golds. The Bitty Dots in front of the naturals are big enough to provide the defender with a significantly shorter distance between the two natural entrances than to the attacker. Thus, they have a significant impact on engagements, even large 200/200 ones. So, with the only real Bitty Dot being in front of the golds, and rightfully so in my opinion, I'm quite confused as to why they really matter here.
You are quite the genius when it comes to map making, so I think I overlooked something you might have been trying to get across. Thus, could you clarify more so I could potentially avoid this in future maps? Would be of much thanks
I think this map looks like a blast. Sure, it's a little different, but that's what makes it good. I'm tired of maps with bases only along the outer edges with a lone watch tower in the center. You fall into one of those categories, but your bases are mixed up enough to make me say, "OK."
You're up against a lot of people who are set in their ways; set in them for now anyway. Nobody wants to create a new set of strategies for a map that they won't play frequently. Until maps like this get more face-time, they'll get cut down because they don't follow the rules. Although, keep this up and you'll have my approval, at least.
Go test it! I would if I could. It looks like a lot of fun.
Mikey, this is a finalist in the Teamliquid Map-Making Contest, so it has already been decently tested. Though, you'll see several more games played on it during the next TLopen.
Well, I didn't know that, so I'm sorry! Get off my back already.
I've been out of the loop for too long. Consider everything I say for the next two months to be uninformed nonsense. I'm glad this map is seeing some action. I can't wait to watch some games on it. Fun!
Absolutely gorgeous map! I have been wanting to make a map with water on it like this! Mine is planned to be a Forest theme with murky water though, and I have no clue where to begin yet. Are you on of the map makers that streams? [edit - what is a bitty dot... ? Nvm]
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SaYjS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BXCOW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MHx5x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JD5zO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TbaGh.png)
] ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oe20j.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ed1kY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VSEya.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VXGol.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LFvxB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RvEV6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nwb1C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/STx3F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HyTpg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MNqCn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GsstR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBddf.jpg)
It only takes three 3x3 buildings to wall off 3rd. Ramp width has been decreased from 4 to 3, and the minerals have been moved slightly closer to ramp for shorter distance. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bXJnZ.jpg)
More trees and doodads have been added to decrease some openness in the middle area. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fexls.jpg)
Small change, but a change nevertheless. Curtain has been added to the extended land that wraps around main to make room for other uses than just robo blink in PvP, which was its original purpose. 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/26WR0.jpg)
Forge Fast expand wall.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CDXgM.jpg)
1 gate expand wall. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QyKbT.jpg)
3 gate expand wall. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K0Rbl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MUvml.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cs1oT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bsECO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Iras.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OV1w9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Lm77.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2CPKQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JyVic.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OuNG5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RwgBL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gJXbt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZUPMi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic47/a3f55acb05265e3bee3b79a50bd4b370.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1DM3x.png)
