|
Fractured
Version 0.6 - uploaded to NA/EU as Fractured
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G6Skw.jpg)
Map Introduction:
It's been a couple months since my last map creation, TPW Ohana, and since then it was difficult to come up with another layout for my next project. About 2 weeks ago I opened up the editor and started sketching out a design and it turned out to look really promising, so I followed through with it. This is a rugged, desert, wastelandish map. The aesthetics are mostly in the center (thanks to Johannez) and the nature itself. I didn't want to get too involved with doodads this time. I just wanted to be simple. The same textures from one my previous maps, TPW Antiga Prime, are used on here because I thought they looked marvelous, but I brushed up on its detail a lot more for this map. So, here I give you, Fractured.
Map Information:
Players: 2
Nat2Nat: 124.6 AU
Bases: 10 (all blue)
Spawn: 11 and 5
Map Size: 136x136
Features:
• Each corner base at 2 and 8 o'clock feature a low-ground platform, enabling proxy play, nydus usage, and different drop harassment advantages.
• The watch towers cover the middle paths. There is also LoSB all around the map that can be utilized offensively or defensively.
• You can grab 3 or 4 bases and play sim city while still threatened by several other attack paths.
• There are destructible rocks to open the back door to your low-ground 3rd, as well as near the corner 4ths to create additional walk paths.
• The watch towers are very important for this map and can be used effectively for attacking or defending. Taking at least one tower is key!
Other Pics: (out-dated)
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer Pics: (out-dated)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
your Country52797 Posts
Is the name Fractured or Fracture?
Also, seems sort of cramped in the center.
|
It's fractured, made a typo
|
Seems like a zerg map.
Ramp far from main base.
Moon shape expansion pattern.
Many LoS blockers.
Lots of air space.
No gold.
No abusable high grounds.
|
On November 26 2011 03:29 Sea_Food wrote:
Seems like a zerg map.
Ramp far from main base. ----> hurts Zerg just as much because of creep
Moon shape expansion pattern. ---> third is almsot free for Protoss/Terran
Many LoS blockers. ---> what? The only dangerous ones are in the center
Lots of air space. ---> almost no airspace aside from corner bases, air helps T drops anyway, plus they're encouraged to drop in the corners on the low-ground platform.
No gold. ---> overpowered for Terran on every map
No abusable high grounds. ----> because every map has cliffs at expos?
|
Croatia176 Posts
I like it a lot.
Even though you said you didn't wanna go overboard with doodads, I would suggest adding a few where the unpathable terrain is in order to communicate that better, sucks to find out when you already got there with the drop and it fails to unload.
P.S. And for a wasteland, it sure does have a lot of water surrounding it 
|
I will consider adding more rock-like doodads on the unpathable cliffs. Thanks for the note 
I said it was "wasteland-ish" lol... close enough. The water adds to it though, makes it look a little better I think.
|
Version 0.2 is now released on NA. Here are the changes as credited by a master protoss, master zerg, and diamond terran during play testing.
1) The watch towers were re-positioned more toward the center. They now reveal the high ground, and are covered by LoSB. This was done to ensure that those defending can get a clear image of any incoming attack waves through the main attack paths. This also opened up the outer attack paths and they are now out of range (including the rocks to the low-ground third).
New tower placement:
+ Show Spoiler +
2) The cliffs by the low-ground 3rd and center 3rd are unpathable, but there were no doodads on these cliffs to further justify its proof. Therefore I added simple rock/tree/terran-like doodads on each one to further communicate that they are unpathable.
Doodads added to unpathable cliffs:
+ Show Spoiler +
That is all.
|
I like the overall layout here. At first I thought it was weird but that was because I was looking at it in the wrong direction, where the nat and third are. Then I realized where the ramp was. haha.
Anyway, I like that there is the high ground center where tanks can zone some, but plenty of room to run around them as well. The only thing that I am questioning a bit is the long rocks around the outside. They seem to block a good counter-attack path, but I guess later in the game they don't matter too much on that front.
|
On November 26 2011 14:26 TheAmazombie wrote:
I like the overall layout here. At first I thought it was weird but that was because I was looking at it in the wrong direction, where the nat and third are. Then I realized where the ramp was. haha.
Anyway, I like that there is the high ground center where tanks can zone some, but plenty of room to run around them as well. The only thing that I am questioning a bit is the long rocks around the outside. They seem to block a good counter-attack path, but I guess later in the game they don't matter too much on that front.
The long rocks are there to decrease the open-ness of your possible 4th base in the corner. Without the rocks, the base is just too open. Those rocks also create another important, useful path if they're destroyed.
|
On November 26 2011 14:29 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 14:26 TheAmazombie wrote:
I like the overall layout here. At first I thought it was weird but that was because I was looking at it in the wrong direction, where the nat and third are. Then I realized where the ramp was. haha.
Anyway, I like that there is the high ground center where tanks can zone some, but plenty of room to run around them as well. The only thing that I am questioning a bit is the long rocks around the outside. They seem to block a good counter-attack path, but I guess later in the game they don't matter too much on that front. The long rocks are there to decrease the open-ness of your possible 4th base in the corner. Without the rocks, the base is just too open. Those rocks also create another important, useful path if they're destroyed.
Yeah, I can see that. Another feature that I like are those small platforms by the 1 and 7 positions that could be used as drop points or hidden stuff. I think it is cool to have little things like that. It makes the map dynamic.
|
I am considering changing the center high ground to one large ramp on each side instead of 2 separate ones to make it less chokey. What does everybody think about this?
|
On November 27 2011 02:52 IronManSC wrote:
I am considering changing the center high ground to one large ramp on each side instead of 2 separate ones to make it less chokey. What does everybody think about this?
Agreed
|
After several tests with diamond and master players, as well as feedback from other great map-makers, I've decided to re-design the center high ground and make it less chokey.
New Center High Ground:
+ Show Spoiler +
Version 0.4 is now on NA. I need to update the OP's pictures though soon. If you're interested, add me IronMan.714
EDIT: Analyzer photos updated.
|
On November 26 2011 03:29 Sea_Food wrote:
Seems like a zerg map.
Ramp far from main base.
Moon shape expansion pattern.
Many LoS blockers.
Lots of air space.
No gold.
No abusable high grounds.
lol ...
but really. plz to move the spawn closer to the ramp
|
I will consider re-designing the mains to ensure that the main spawns are relatively closer to the natural.
So far I have seen some great TvZ and TvP games on here ^^
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 27 2011 12:47 Barrin wrote:<3 IronManSC I'm just gonna be blunt here, because I feel really strongly about this. I choose to write about this here because this map is a ridiculously prime example. There is a particular style/combination of proportions, base flow, and distances that I feel is profoundly hindering balanced, defenders-advantage-oriented but back-and-forth macro games. I can probably think of a better name, but for now I will call it "Circle Syndrome". Every symptom in the following picture adds to the problem (indeed it is all synergistic, all of them together is IMO basically a formula for disaster - interestingly enough this map has all of them together). However, most maps that have the Circle Syndrome don't have all of the symptoms. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rQh9h.jpg) Use this picture as a guideline for diagnosing the Circle Syndrome. The thing is that at least half of the expansions are extremely vulnerable to harassment. The problem is that it is mostly due to distances (removing defender's advantage) instead of actual base vulnerability (well in this case it's that too actually). If you ask me, almost exclusively no more than 35% of the end game expansions should have the defender's advantage removed in such a way. IMO most of these bases should have a small ramp (1x or 2x) on the attacker's side (and a significantly longer distance to any wider entrance (a structure I encourage)). I don't want to get too confusing, so I am going to highlight some of the top problems and their solutions (they are about distances): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/77Wyk.jpg) However, the ultimate cure to the Circle Syndrome is very simple. An easy third base! It shouldn't be overwhelmingly easy vulnerabilities like old Terminus, but it's distance to almost all of the enemy's eventual bases should generally be quite far. An easy fourth base (like only a single entrance) also helps a lot. In other words a fairly high saturation of minerals "far" away from your opponent. Don't get me wrong - maybe this map is a great aggressive map. I don't want to rule it out quite yet. But I swear it's the epitome of what I have been planning to move away from in my next maps. I just want to express that I think this particular combination of proportions, base flow, and distances (now conglomerated into a single map - I suppose that's impressive actually lol) has been too pervasive in the mapmaking metagame. Make it stop please!
What about these other 2p maps?+ Show Spoiler +Xel'Naga Caverns (140x124) + Show Spoiler +Well, it doesn't have a tremendous amount of the classic symptoms. But it has very difficult 3rd and 4th. Definitely a candidate for the Circle Syndrome.
Dual Sight (150x120) + Show Spoiler +Yeah... pretty bad actually. Definitely Circle Syndrome.
Crossfire (108x160) + Show Spoiler +Lol. Such a unique map. It essentially does not suffer too much from the Circle Syndrome (you could argue that it does somewhat).
Daybreak (148x120) + Show Spoiler +If you start looking at this map from the center it looks like it has Circle Syndrome. But the fairly long rectangular distance (left to right) resulting in an easy third makes it more than bearable. Half of the central bases are low saturation (relative mineral saturation is the key here - this helps). An amazing map that takes the best of both worlds.
Bel'Shir Beach (120x128) + Show Spoiler +Kinda looks like it has it. But look closely. The map's (fairly small = good) central width gets split through the 3.5 and 6.5 central bases. These bases have very high openness making them unattractive until the late game. Fairly high resource saturation on your half of the map: (1) the third is quite open actually, but the fairly long third-third distance makes up for it, also the third is only close to the highly open (unattractive) central base (2) there is only 1 entrance to the fourth, woot (3) the fifth base has only a single convenient attacking entrance. No Circle Syndrome here.
Well whadya know. If you force a 4p map to be cross position only, it's basically a 2p map. None of the 4 (originally 4-spawn but now forced cross position) maps in the WCG map pool have any problems with Circle Syndrome. Shakuras Plateau (156x128) + Show Spoiler +Tal'Darim Altar (176x176) + Show Spoiler +Antiga Shipyard (132x136) + Show Spoiler +Metalopolis (140x140) + Show Spoiler +
While I see what you are saying and agree from my perspective, if one were to more or remove the two bases as you are suggesting, should that not seem to set up a bit too much split-map type of play? I like the idea of having just a big open area there instead of a base, kind of gives it a Brood War feel in a way, but would that create other problems is what I am asking?
Also, IronMan, the center is much better now I think.
|
On November 27 2011 12:47 Barrin wrote:<3 IronManSC I'm just gonna be blunt here, because I feel really strongly about this. I choose to write about this here because this map is a ridiculously prime example. There is a particular style/combination of proportions, base flow, and distances that I feel is profoundly hindering balanced, defenders-advantage-oriented but back-and-forth macro games. I can probably think of a better name, but for now I will call it "Circle Syndrome". Every symptom in the following picture adds to the problem (indeed it is all synergistic, all of them together is IMO basically a formula for disaster - interestingly enough this map has all of them together). However, most maps that have the Circle Syndrome don't have all of the symptoms. Use this picture as a guideline for diagnosing the Circle Syndrome. The thing is that at least half of the expansions are extremely vulnerable to harassment. The problem is that it is mostly due to distances (removing defender's advantage) instead of actual base vulnerability (well in this case it's that too actually). If you ask me, almost exclusively no more than 35% of the end game expansions should have the defender's advantage removed in such a way. IMO most of these bases should have a small ramp (1x or 2x) on the attacker's side (and a significantly longer distance to any wider entrance (a structure I encourage)). I don't want to get too confusing, so I am going to highlight some of the top problems and their solutions (they are about distances): However, the ultimate cure to the Circle Syndrome is very simple. An easy third base! It shouldn't be overwhelmingly easy vulnerabilities like old Terminus, but it's distance to almost all of the enemy's eventual bases should generally be quite far. An easy fourth base (like only a single entrance) also helps a lot. In other words a fairly high saturation of minerals "far" away from your opponent. Don't get me wrong - maybe this map is a great aggressive map. I don't want to rule it out quite yet. But I swear it's the epitome of what I have been planning to move away from in my next maps. I just want to express that I think this particular combination of proportions, base flow, and distances (now conglomerated into a single map - I suppose that's impressive actually lol) has been too pervasive in the mapmaking metagame. Make it stop please!
What about these other 2p maps?+ Show Spoiler +Xel'Naga Caverns (140x124) + Show Spoiler +Well, it doesn't have a tremendous amount of the classic symptoms. But it has very difficult 3rd and 4th. Definitely a candidate for the Circle Syndrome.
Dual Sight (150x120) + Show Spoiler +Yeah... pretty bad actually. Definitely Circle Syndrome.
Crossfire (108x160) + Show Spoiler +Lol. Such a unique map. It essentially does not suffer too much from the Circle Syndrome (you could argue that it does somewhat).
Daybreak (148x120) + Show Spoiler +If you start looking at this map from the center it looks like it has Circle Syndrome. But the fairly long rectangular distance (left to right) resulting in an easy third makes it more than bearable. Half of the central bases are low saturation (relative mineral saturation is the key here - this helps). An amazing map that takes the best of both worlds.
Bel'Shir Beach (120x128) + Show Spoiler +Kinda looks like it has it. But look closely. The map's (fairly small = good) central width gets split through the 3.5 and 6.5 central bases. These bases have very high openness making them unattractive until the late game. Fairly high resource saturation on your half of the map: (1) the third is quite open actually, but the fairly long third-third distance makes up for it, also the third is only close to the highly open (unattractive) central base (2) there is only 1 entrance to the fourth, woot (3) the fifth base has only a single convenient attacking entrance. No Circle Syndrome here.
Well whadya know. If you force a 4p map to be cross position only, it's basically a 2p map. None of the 4 (originally 4-spawn but now forced cross position) maps in the WCG map pool have any problems with Circle Syndrome. Shakuras Plateau (156x128) + Show Spoiler +Tal'Darim Altar (176x176) + Show Spoiler +Antiga Shipyard (132x136) + Show Spoiler +Metalopolis (140x140) + Show Spoiler +
I have read this about three times over and I still don't understand what you're getting at. What exactly are you trying to imply with the distances? The distances for the defenders bases are ridiculously shorter than that of the attack path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2cvWf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Y2he.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bfKms.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IKOIZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l8SPQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BLq5Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VmlUV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TWxgw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Og899.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zkoU9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GUwrl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kuxBd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A6sHH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qgxLH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T9eXY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Lzait.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AXoKG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fbenk.jpg)
