2) Re-designed the natural backdoors from 3-wide to 2-wide, and also made them more aesthetically appealing.
3) Removed the rocks around the center of the map. These were only important in the early game, but very easy to remove in the mid and late game. The idea was to raise its HP to twice the amount, but it would confuse or upset players it seemed, so the rocks were removed entirely. At first I wanted to leave it open, but then the center base was too open, so I ended up just putting a stationary piece of doodad work there for good.
2) Changed the center half-bases to full, regular bases
3) Fixed playable (and overall) map borders to better identify the bounds and pathable areas
4) Aesthetics are updated (dirt/sand blending, main base walls, Vines, bushes, Omni lights, new doodad on center pillar, rocks)
5) Replaced Tyrador Grass with Bel'Shir Brush texture
6) Re-textured the main bases to make them more natural. I also blended the grass with the bricks more around the center to make it look more overgrown.
Introduction: I learned a lot from my previous map, ESV Ohana RE. While I believe beach maps look beautiful, I do think they need to be playable at the same time. I took what I learned from Ohana and applied it to my next beach map and decided to make this map more simple in terms of water arrangements. In this map, The island is surrounded by sand, and as you go closer to the center, it becomes more green and lush, while also exploring ancient protoss ruins and artifacts.
There are omni lights in the trees to make them glow more, and the temple banners in various places have a small glow added to them as well. In the middle I added a temple artifact surrounded by destroyed walls, and to emphasize the "power" of this artifact I put sunrays around it to make it look "beaming."
Anyways, this is my newest map, Clearwater, and it is published on NA Enjoy!
Features:
• The half-bases in the center contain lit-up, rich geysers to promote usage but also at risk
• The natural can be walled off with a FFE, but you still have a large back door blocked by rocks
• The watch towers provide safe coverage over your 3rd (which is a little open)
• There are two sets of destructible rocks around the middle that can be used to utilize choke/defensive advantages or to break them down and create a more open battleground (Zergs might like this)
Previously I had 4 sets of rocks in the center, but I replaced the top left and bottom right with man-made protoss wall/structures as you can see in the picture. While I thought 4 sets of rocks was unique, I felt it was too much, and gave Zerg way too big of an advantage if they are aggressive because all they would have to do is knock down the defender's rocks and his middle expansion has no way to be defended. So I put those towers there to give terran and protoss a helping hand with their center base. With that said, I felt the more important rocks were in front of the naturals since they can completely change the the game, whether defensively or aggressively, so I left those there.
I may add pockets of islands around the map... but I think this is just realistic as is. If you notice, there are no palm trees! This isn't your typical beach map, so I thought it was rather unique, and my personal favorite thing about it is how it's beach on the edges, then lush in the middle ^^
On January 01 2012 10:11 Vindicare605 wrote: that's a really small main. The Terran player inside me groans at it.
Other than that, this looks awesome. Can't wait to play it Ironman.
It might appear small because it's stretched horizontally so you have to build a more horizontal-oriented base rather than just a big ball of buildings, but then again, there is extra room in the natural for production buildings
If you get a chance to play it, please leave your feedback! Mabye a replay!
EDIT:
I just want to make it known that the 3rd feels quite open, but here's the thing, it's away from your opponent. For an opponent to reach your 3rd (along the shore next to your natural), they have to go all the way to the opposite side of the map and attack along the shoreline, or they go through a watch tower that hopefully you occupied, but either way they have to cross over your primary path where you will have an army placed.
In short, the third looks and feels open, but positionally, it's well protected. I just want to clear that up.
On January 01 2012 10:11 Vindicare605 wrote: that's a really small main. The Terran player inside me groans at it.
Other than that, this looks awesome. Can't wait to play it Ironman.
It might appear small because it's stretched horizontally so you have to build a more horizontal-oriented base rather than just a big ball of buildings, but then again, there is extra room in the natural for production buildings
If you get a chance to play it, please leave your feedback! Mabye a replay!
Well that's fine except that all Terran addons are placed horizontally.
What it turns into is rows of production facilities with units having to basically traverse a maze to get to their rally point. When bases are constructed in a more vertical fashion there's a lot more freedom of movement for their units.
Terran's really the only race that has to worry about this. Zerg don't have to construct a lot of buildings at all and Protoss Warp Gates don't require rallying.
It's a strategic thing for all Terran production to come from the same place. This is so that if an enemy ever breaches your defenses your units are all spawning at the same place and can rally together to defend your base, doesn't work as well when your production facilities are scattered all over the map.
I'm not sure exactly if its' really going to be a problem yet with your map because I haven't played it yet, this post is really more of an explanation of why Terrans are at a disadvantage when their main base is so cramped.
EDIT: This concern is obviously speculation in nature. I'll leave more detailed feedback about the size of the main after I've played a few games on it.
I really think you have to mark walkable area borders with cliffs or doodads. The terrain dropoff and waterline is too ambiguous and not shaped. It's too hard to know what's available for movement for the spectators and players. And honestly, it would be a lot more realistic and I think better looking to have a cliff dropoff near the waterline anyway. I don't think oceans ever have a smooth sandy dropoff like that, as all the sand would fall away to form a more gradual slope, unless there was a rocky cliff.
The dirt texture also feels a bit out of place to be for some reason. Korhal Dirt, right? That one has a hard time fitting in with other tilesets for me. I don't know what would be better, though.
Layout wise, I really like the setup of the bases. Having the five like that is really cool. I don't really like the high yield gas bases like that in general. They never really seemed to play out very well on maps like Daybreak. I think I'd prefer them to be full expos, but that would of course cause other problems. I don't know if others agree, I'm just not really a fan of them. Absolutely destroys any chance of getting it on ladder, too, and I think the ideal maps should be designed for both ladder and tournaments, but that's not too big of a deal.
I like the look of it, but staring at it I noticed each player only gets 3 and 2/3 expansions, which is new. I dunno, the outside seems a little bare, by the overview at least. I may check it out in game, it might feel better there. But from first impressions, it does look like there are aesthetic pieces to fill in. Great map though!
Alright after a couple games on it, I've noticed a few things.
The first is that my fears about the size of the main for terran production are somewhat realized although not to a magnitude greater than maps already in the ladder pool so i suppose it isn't that big of a deal.
It's cramped but workable. So that's not a problem.
The problem I discovered while playing it is that all of the attack paths are very very narrow. There are very few places on the map where its possible to have a battle where one choke or another is not in play. This makes Siege Tanks, and Forcefields exceptionally powerful on this map in a way very similar to Crossfire in the GSL. I didn't play a TvT on it yet but I'd imagine any of the complaints I had with the chokepoints would be greatly magnified if I did.
This is probably an intended design feature although I personally was not much a fan of it.
What I did like was the location of the expansions. They all felt valuable yet there wasn't a clear distinction that made the location of the third something that was predetermined. I like that a lot. The overall aesthetics of the map were what you'd expect from one of Ironman's maps.
Hahaha, awesome. This is like Rising Tides transported into the future, magically developed through 18 months of SC2 mapping progress.
Best use of rocks in the middle of nowhere that I've yet seen. The outside beach pathways are very interesting; would like to playtest.
Kind of small number of bases. This is a little bit unfortunate because:
A solid, macro oriented player (who won't succumb to the allure of all in play) will try to be cost effective on a map that only has 2.5 bases after the main/natural. In the ideal game between two such players, there would be a lot of interesting repositioning and probably few major fights while the players calculate and try to find openings. But with so few bases, I feel players will have little incentive but to turtle and strike at the right moment. By playing cost effective, you plan to accumulate material advantage and possibly use a starvation endgame. When the timeline is limited by the resource count, it presses back the horizon of when a player should "cash in" his advantage gained through cost effectiveness.
On the other hand, it might just make for slow and cagey games, assuming the style of play I describe above.
To take the above and say it a different way -- zerg is kind of on a timer. They have to win with their 9 geysers, there's nowhere else to extend the game. Even though most lay spectcators consider a lategame battle epic, it's still an all in if you're forced to just "go for it" because you can't possibly take more bases and keep the game going.
And this map has so many cool ways to reposition, it's a shame if they can't be used to their fullest extent. But, it's also just a style of map and that's okay too, even if the terrain rarely gets to experience its potential fully, cause it's nice terrain.
Pretty nice, I like the simplicity of it and the openness of the third. One thing I've noticed with your maps IronManSC is that your texturing is a bit cut-and-dry, in that there isn't much natural blending between certain textures like grass and dirt, and that there also doesn't seem to be much natural terrain deformation such as hills and valleys. Still looks great and better than most maps out there, but it's something you could perhaps work on if you want to step your aesthetics up a notch. Also it's distinct enough that I instantly knew this was one of your maps before looking at the name because of the texturing .
On January 01 2012 14:50 WniO wrote: too few bases to be a serious map, but it certaintly looks fun, and in my books thats all that matters. nice dirt/jungle work too.
I agree somewhat with this statement, however there are 10 bases which is a decent amount even if 2 are 'half-bases'. It's good to keep in mind every map doesn't have to be a macro map. It also means you won't see extremely long drawn out game where both players just posture back and forth and one eventually gets steam-rolled because of a simple mistake.
Lastly to address the issue some people are having with space in the mains for terrans, you could move the gas and mineral to be at the back of the mains. This might fix the issue all together. TBH I don't think the mains are small, they're probably the same size as Xel'Naga if not slightly bigger, I think it's just a positioning issue.
--- PS the Protoss artifact in the middle is kinda boring , not the walls around it, just the artifact in the little pedestal.
Awesome. I really like the creativity in it. I think that it could really benefit from adding islands in the dead space (either top right/bottom left corners or in the top/bottom middle) so that you have another expanding option past 4 or 5 bases.
On January 01 2012 14:50 WniO wrote: too few bases to be a serious map, but it certaintly looks fun, and in my books thats all that matters. nice dirt/jungle work too.
Not true at all, this map has 10 bases. Dual Sight, Crossfire and Shattered all have 10 bases as well. Bel'Shir Beach, Metalopolis & Daybreak have 12 just 2 more than this map.
MisfortuneS Ghost mentioned the outside looks a little bare, and, while it does on the overview, I think, for the most part, it will look quite nice in a casted match. Not every map needs huge protoss relics surrounding it. Not to discourage you from taking the aesthetic a bit further, but mostly just say "ahhh, I like it".
Aesthetically speaking, the mains feel... almost out of place. We have these massive artificial structures on both sides of the island (the mains) that are rather plain, and then the rest is bright and organic, till we get to the mysterious middle ruins. I think giving them an overgrown look, or having the outward-facing cliff as organic (with doodads hidding the seam), would remove the out-of-place feel I get from it now.
Dang it IronMan, stop making so many good maps! I can't wrap my head around all of them and their awesomeness! :p Seriously though, the mains need changing to make terran simcity less awkward and make them in place aesthetically. Once you do that you have something here...
1) Re-positioning the main base minerals into the corners
2) Adding possible island expansions (blocked by a creep tumor). The only problem with this is the map borders have to be extended for this to work which means there will be additional airspace near the mains. I think it's workable though.
3) Updating a few aesthetics, such as vines and working on dirt/sand/grass blending near the beaches
The problem I discovered while playing it is that all of the attack paths are very very narrow. There are very few places on the map where its possible to have a battle where one choke or another is not in play. This makes Siege Tanks, and Forcefields exceptionally powerful on this map in a way very similar to Crossfire in the GSL. I didn't play a TvT on it yet but I'd imagine any of the complaints I had with the chokepoints would be greatly magnified if I did.
I think all the shoreline bases and everything around the center is quite open, especially if you break down the rocks. Those rocks are only there to utilize defensive capabilities if you want to take the half-base in the center, or you can break them down to create a more open battlefield.
I think island expansions are making a comeback. I approve of this.
The other thing I was thinking would be possible with the map to add more bases, would involve stretching the base wider. I was thinking if you added bases you would have to stretch the map out (which would also move the central expansions further apart and away from the center, which I think is a good idea,) but I was thinking the rush distance would be too great. Then it dawned on me, that one half of the map could actually be flipped vertically to make the unblocked natural ramps closer to each other. Because the map is drawn is such symmetrical way (reminds be of that new map, Chain Reaction, in BW,) it wouldn't really effect very much of it. Just a thought, it might be kind of drastic. Although I think you should go with the islands, so I can shamelessly steal this layout, stretched and flipped and with a new center design. If you don't mind. If I wait a few months I can pull it off as "inspired by" maybe.
The natural lay out looks very, very bad as a zerg - but I'm not sure. How easy is it to just walk around a hatch (if there is one) and go up the main ramp?
I would also make the road (as the attacker) between the rocks and the ramp to the natural a (little) bit longer, to really avoid blistering sands syndrome.
On January 01 2012 14:50 WniO wrote: too few bases to be a serious map, but it certaintly looks fun, and in my books thats all that matters. nice dirt/jungle work too.
Not true at all, this map has 10 bases. Dual Sight, Crossfire and Shattered all have 10 bases as well. Bel'Shir Beach, Metalopolis & Daybreak have 12 just 2 more than this map.
I agree that there are too few bases. Where 10 bases is enough for many maps, 2 of those bases are half bases and are in the middle. Thus, there are only 8 full bases. Sure those half bases will be used by toss and terran, but what about zerg? Middle map expansions that are close to their main and only half bases don't seem too attractive. Sure it's a rich gas, but I'd say most zerg players would rather have a full base that's further away from the main. Can still be in the middle, just needs to be further away. Keep in mind, late game zerg can easily get to 5 or 6 bases, so I'm beginning to think that this map hurts late game zerg, though I'm not entirely sure. Would have to see how zerg players play this map.
Aside that, the only other thing I don't like about this map is the backdoor into the natural. If zerg breaks the toss's rocks in a pvz, I doubt the protoss will be able to take and hold their 3rd just due to the distances they would have to cover to defend their natural, 3rd, and even main.
Though I must say, this map does look quite gorgeous and has a very interesting layout, and I think I would enjoy watching games on this map. Nice work Ironman
IronMan, you are an amazing map maker. As such, I have a question about ramps leading from the main to the natural. On this map I see that your map doesn't really face the natural like most people's maps (i.e. non-blizzard map makers) I see. I'm wondering what your reason is, because most of the time I thought the ramp faced the natural to be able to block off easier, and make it easier for one to defend their natural.
Some possible reasons I've thought of are that because the natural is elevated, the defending player can just defend the ramp leading from the middle to the natural. No early game attack is going to break down the rocks in time to be able to flank, so defending your natural is relatively easily, and scales with difficulty as you get a bigger army (i.e. the rocks).
I'm not really a map maker, and just a platinum player, but I was curious what the answer was. Anyway, your map is pretty good. I'm going to try to convince my friends to play a few games on it tonight. Strong work!
On January 03 2012 06:05 hoby2000 wrote: IronMan, you are an amazing map maker. As such, I have a question about ramps leading from the main to the natural. On this map I see that your map doesn't really face the natural like most people's maps (i.e. non-blizzard map makers) I see. I'm wondering what your reason is, because most of the time I thought the ramp faced the natural to be able to block off easier, and make it easier for one to defend their natural.
Some possible reasons I've thought of are that because the natural is elevated, the defending player can just defend the ramp leading from the middle to the natural. No early game attack is going to break down the rocks in time to be able to flank, so defending your natural is relatively easily, and scales with difficulty as you get a bigger army (i.e. the rocks).
I'm not really a map maker, and just a platinum player, but I was curious what the answer was. Anyway, your map is pretty good. I'm going to try to convince my friends to play a few games on it tonight. Strong work!
There are several maps where the main ramp is not technically facing toward the natural base minerals. In this case, the choke into the natural is where it lies. It is the same as Shakuras Plateau - easily wallable. This natural base setup is next to what most people consider "standard" (or, ramp facing the natural). My reasoning for doing so was nothing big, but just to be creative and promote different play styles.
Im just a spectator so I can't comment on balance, but I really like it. I love the combination of the beach outer area and the forest center, although the beach does seem to end a bit abruptly. Also the rock usage is very cool and I especially like the way you used them in the center. I wish more tournament maps had some of these more creative features. Not that big of a deal, but could you keep the old versions in a spoiler tag? I sorta like seeing what the earlier posts were referring to, and also how the map changes.
On January 03 2012 08:10 Clank wrote: could you keep the old versions in a spoiler tag? I sorta like seeing what the earlier posts were referring to, and also how the map changes.
Ask and you shall receive!
The spoiler for each version is under the current overview screenshots. Everytime I update the map, I will take a new overview to put at the top, while the previous will go in the spoiler, showing the progress.
I like it that you can completely wall off the natural, then break down the rocks to take your 3rd. I'd like to see some games played on it though because I feel if you wall off the natural and the enemy goes to break down the rocks early you might be screwed since that'd open up a huuuge choke.
On January 03 2012 10:59 SidianTheBard wrote: You love your beach maps. :D
I like it that you can completely wall off the natural, then break down the rocks to take your 3rd. I'd like to see some games played on it though because I feel if you wall off the natural and the enemy goes to break down the rocks early you might be screwed since that'd open up a huuuge choke.
I kinda want to create another beach map ^^ It's beach syndrome.
The natural is very unique I think, and it's been played several ways in the 15ish games I've hosted on it, but everybody likes it so far and I've received no major balance suggestions! This may be the rare map that is quite balanced off the start ^^
EDIT: Going on battle.net for NA to test some games! IronMan.714
That looks fantastic, you can see the flow of the map just by looking at it. The overgrowing you did makes it all look natural, in addition. Especially the main bases. Nice work.
On January 04 2012 04:37 WniO wrote: change the cliffs in the water so they dont just drop off, it looks awkward, have it gradually go away, like a sand beach.
It was previously like this. I've gotten too many suggested comments to make it a cliff.
On January 02 2012 02:13 monitor wrote: Awesome. I really like the creativity in it. I think that it could really benefit from adding islands in the dead space (either top right/bottom left corners or in the top/bottom middle) so that you have another expanding option past 4 or 5 bases.
I agree, islands would be cool on this map. Give expanding options and make a base with specific vulnerability. Just make sure to balance it correctly (meaning blink range and block it correctly).
You could use smaller (like 4x4) rocks partially overlapping to require more time and effort for the removal of the center obstacles. In my games these rocks have been important early and the open space is fine lategame... so I don't understand a permanent obstacle at all.
The natural back door is fine in my games but I guess it doesn't hurt to make it smaller. :\
On January 05 2012 07:31 EatThePath wrote: What prompted those changes in 0.3?
You could use smaller (like 4x4) rocks partially overlapping to require more time and effort for the removal of the center obstacles. In my games these rocks have been important early and the open space is fine lategame... so I don't understand a permanent obstacle at all.
The natural back door is fine in my games but I guess it doesn't hurt to make it smaller. :\
I've had over a dozen games played yesterday with a few grandmasters, LiquidRet, a wannabe oGsMC, and a few masters. Most of the observers were platinum+. They all concluded that the center rocks were unique, but worthless after the early game. At first I was suggested to raise the HP by one player, but the rest said it was not a good idea and that I should just put a small, permanent doodad there instead. I have to take their word for it.
The back door to the natural needed to be shortened, as indicated by all these players, because for a terran or protoss to fast expand, those rocks can post a threat (moreover, the width of the ramp). I needed to give defenders more confidence of securing that back door.
On January 05 2012 07:31 EatThePath wrote: What prompted those changes in 0.3?
You could use smaller (like 4x4) rocks partially overlapping to require more time and effort for the removal of the center obstacles. In my games these rocks have been important early and the open space is fine lategame... so I don't understand a permanent obstacle at all.
The natural back door is fine in my games but I guess it doesn't hurt to make it smaller. :\
I've had over a dozen games played yesterday with a few grandmasters, LiquidRet, a wannabe oGsMC, and a few masters. Most of the observers were platinum+. They all concluded that the center rocks were unique, but worthless after the early game. At first I was suggested to raise the HP by one player, but the rest said it was not a good idea and that I should just put a small, permanent doodad there instead. I have to take their word for it.
The back door to the natural needed to be shortened, as indicated by all these players, because for a terran or protoss to fast expand, those rocks can post a threat (moreover, the width of the ramp). I needed to give defenders more confidence of securing that back door.
That's fair, I don't think you lose that much in the changes so I won't dig my heels in about it. Just wanted to share my personal thoughts from about as many games.
Btw I have really been enjoying the use of the beach lanes on the outside edges. It's so open and removed from the rest of the map, makes for really interesting scout/proxy pylons to watch drops and stage harass zealots, different than anything I've played on before in a subtle way. Also provides a really nice escape route for blink stalkers from the tower ridge.
On January 04 2012 04:37 WniO wrote: change the cliffs in the water so they dont just drop off, it looks awkward, have it gradually go away, like a sand beach.
It was previously like this. I've gotten too many suggested comments to make it a cliff.
well make the boundaries obvious without the cliff... idk rocks or stark color contrast.
On January 04 2012 04:37 WniO wrote: change the cliffs in the water so they dont just drop off, it looks awkward, have it gradually go away, like a sand beach.
It was previously like this. I've gotten too many suggested comments to make it a cliff.
well make the boundaries obvious without the cliff... idk rocks or stark color contrast.
You might be able to use fog with a sharp cutoff setting and very thick density.
Very nice map, I always cheer whenever I see a map on Belshir as there are too few. I like the Zel Naga towers on the high ground thats gonna make for some interesting plays. I'd like to see maps where the natural is not given to the players and are instead "risky" to secure.
A replay section has been added to the OP above the changelog! There is only one so far, and it was a Master PvZ. A very epic battle! Download it and check it out More replays coming when I find good games!
Played a game on it, and while I really like it overall, there are some misplaced cliff gap fillers, as in they haven't been adjusted and look wrong. I was in the southeast main, so that's where I saw them. They were sort of floating in between cliff levels. Get on it
I do like the feel of the natural specifically though. It's just cool. I did also spot how the a-move path goes through a mineral line, which should discourage a-moving in general on this map.
Really enjoyed trying to mentally critique this map. Every time I find a problem I manage to counter it myself. I like the natural progression from easy to defend to game-making decision time when the rocks go down. Complicated thirds and difficult fourths further my interest in this map.
It seems as if faster strategies may shine on this map, but macro strategies based on zone-defense (with structures and quick units) could tear that to pieces if done appropriately.
ESV is lucky to have you Iron. If you need someone to publish it to EU let me know, I've still got spaces available (only hosting RetroSpork 4v4 by Namrufus at the moment).
Pretty fun map. Overall nothing bad sticks out to me. I played on the version with random rocks put in place, was interesting because I was expecting a watch tower once I destroyed it and and nothing came out lol. I later realized it was to create a choke point which is pretty unique I think.
I love the locations of the three third expos though!
On January 05 2012 07:31 EatThePath wrote: What prompted those changes in 0.3?
You could use smaller (like 4x4) rocks partially overlapping to require more time and effort for the removal of the center obstacles. In my games these rocks have been important early and the open space is fine lategame... so I don't understand a permanent obstacle at all.
The natural back door is fine in my games but I guess it doesn't hurt to make it smaller. :\
I've had over a dozen games played yesterday with a few grandmasters, LiquidRet, a wannabe oGsMC, and a few masters. Most of the observers were platinum+. They all concluded that the center rocks were unique, but worthless after the early game. At first I was suggested to raise the HP by one player, but the rest said it was not a good idea and that I should just put a small, permanent doodad there instead. I have to take their word for it.
The back door to the natural needed to be shortened, as indicated by all these players, because for a terran or protoss to fast expand, those rocks can post a threat (moreover, the width of the ramp). I needed to give defenders more confidence of securing that back door.
What if you took that timer that made the xel'naga tower on GSL xel'naga fortress blow up after a certain time and gave it to the rocks/doodad so they would go away after they became worthless? Or is that even worse than changing the HP?
On January 06 2012 13:20 Chargelot wrote: ESV is lucky to have you Iron. If you need someone to publish it to EU let me know, I've still got spaces available (only hosting RetroSpork 4v4 by Namrufus at the moment).
This map can be maxed out on bases to the point where one player may start to take one of his opponent's expansions (see replay in OP). Not every map has to be 12+ bases, as 10 is ideal, and not every game has to be macro either - although 10 bases can turn into a macrofest.
The map was commented as "positional play" because of the watch towers and the backdoor rocks into the natural. It's unique I think, and your strategic success is dependent on your positioning rather than just grabbing 3+ bases.
On January 05 2012 07:31 EatThePath wrote: What prompted those changes in 0.3?
You could use smaller (like 4x4) rocks partially overlapping to require more time and effort for the removal of the center obstacles. In my games these rocks have been important early and the open space is fine lategame... so I don't understand a permanent obstacle at all.
The natural back door is fine in my games but I guess it doesn't hurt to make it smaller. :\
I've had over a dozen games played yesterday with a few grandmasters, LiquidRet, a wannabe oGsMC, and a few masters. Most of the observers were platinum+. They all concluded that the center rocks were unique, but worthless after the early game. At first I was suggested to raise the HP by one player, but the rest said it was not a good idea and that I should just put a small, permanent doodad there instead. I have to take their word for it.
The back door to the natural needed to be shortened, as indicated by all these players, because for a terran or protoss to fast expand, those rocks can post a threat (moreover, the width of the ramp). I needed to give defenders more confidence of securing that back door.
What if you took that timer that made the xel'naga tower on GSL xel'naga fortress blow up after a certain time and gave it to the rocks/doodad so they would go away after they became worthless? Or is that even worse than changing the HP?
Xel'Naga Fortress doesn't use the self-destruct watch tower anymore because of balance-related problems, so it will remain as it is on clearwater.
ESV Clearwater updated to 0.4. Minor bug fixes were addressed when bugs were found near the natural back doors during gameplay where units (stalkers in particular) would get stuck between doodads.
Great map, the thing that I have to comment that I really like is that you have three different choices for which third base to take. Each choice has its' own advantages and disadvantages. Also, as people have mentioned in the thread before, it allows you to play defensive but it has kind of an anti-turtle mentality, which I really like. I think this map would rather favor more aggressive and dynamic midgame.
Once concern that I have however, and pardon me because I didn't read through all the comments, is that it would be rather difficult to FFE on this map with the main ramp so far from where the nexus would be as well as with the backdoor rocks at the natural. On the other hand, perhaps this will just be a 3 gate expo map and add more variety to ZvP.
I really like the side high grounds on the map with the Xel'naga Towers. I think they work quite well and give this map it's own unique flare, and are definitely something that I haven't seen on maps.
The other unique thing about this map are the options for thirds. Honestly, I feel that ESV Guardian by Timetwister is better in terms of a tri-option third base concept, though marginally. One thing that I dislike about this map would be how there is no defined expansion layout at all. I do not mean that all of the expansions should be defined, that is not the case at all, but the only defined expansion on this map at all is the natural. You can take any base you want as your third, but after that, you would be expanding in random patterns and become more and more spread thin in defense, which, in my opinion, harms Protoss in the late game because of their immobility. Expanding randomly after the third negates the concept of expansions covering expansions and therefore makes future expansions more difficult to hold onto than on other maps with a more defined expansion layout. I think one thing that makes Guardian more successful in a sense is that not only is the map larger, but the middle is narrower. On Clearwater, you can see two side paths behind the high ground locations that lead to different expansions. On Guardian, if you want to control a lot of expansions, you can set up position in the middle of the map because of the short map width, which adds to map control and the map being dynamic in general. Setting up in the middle here is a bad idea because the outer expansions will be attacked by using the side paths. One final thing I would like to point out between these maps would be the backdoors regarding the naturals. On Guardian, the angle of attack on the natural is much less severe between the two entrances because they are closer to one another and at a much lesser angle, and therefore easier to defend. On Clearwater, the backdoor is further away from the natural and at a larger angle (though it is not much of a larger angle).
With that said, both concepts are neat, but put together break the map. The side paths and the three thirds really make holding expansions awkward for all races, but especially Protoss in my opinion. I would expect a lot of two base play from Clearwater, but seriously, I really like both concepts! I hope that you use something similar to those high grounds where the towers are and the side paths on a future map of yours!
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBE6C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ui8ht.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ylui5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GVpRD.jpg)
Enjoy!![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oCfI7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jUXKA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nsvIb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QOuew.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8je94.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vRksa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f47c7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0u07V.jpg)
.
