|
ESV Guardian
V 0.6
Published on NA
By TImetwister22
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
Main-Main: 42sec
Nat-Nat: 32sec
Playable: 133x146
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +Bel'Shir Grass Light
Bel'Shir Grass Dark
Bel'Shir Brush
Bel'Shir Dirt Dark
Tarsonis Dirt
Bel'Shir Bricks Small
Bel'Shir Organic Cliffs
Aesthetic Pictures
+ Show Spoiler +
Features
-No Xel'naga watch tower.
-Backdoor into natural.
-Attacking the back door is a serious commitment, as doing so will put you far out of
position.
-Three third options
-Space Shark in middle! Yay!
Concept
I wanted to so something similar to Scorching Dawn but with a slightly different approach. Like Scorching Dawn, this map lacks a Xel'naga watch tower, promoting the emphasis of scouting and allowing sneakier tactics. However, unlike Scorching Dawn players have a choice of three thirds, and its easier to maintain map awareness.
About the Thirds
-Low ground third is the closest and furthest from opponent, however the ramp leading to it is blocked by rocks. It's 2 creep tumors away from natural.
-Central third is close and has no rocks blocking it, yet it's closer to your opponent. It's 1.5 creep tumors away from natural.
-Third along the main is fairly far from opponent, isn't block by rocks, but also slightly further from your natural than the other twol. It's 2.5 creep tumors away from natural.
Change Log
-Decreased size of main by a bit, was a little too large before.
-Brought base along the main slightly closer to the main and natural.
-Changed the cliffs and doodads behind the natural mineral line a bit to help FFE and allow prevention of lings from running around the cannon.
As always, feedback is more than welcome 
Previous Versions
V 0.5
+ Show Spoiler +Analyzer+ Show Spoiler +Main-Main: 42sec Nat-Nat: 32sec Playable: 133x146 Aesthetics+ Show Spoiler +Bel'Shir Grass Light
Bel'Shir Grass Dark
Bel'Shir Brush
Bel'Shir Dirt Dark
Tarsonis Dirt
Bel'Shir Bricks Small
Bel'Shir Organic Cliffs
|
I find this map extremely similar to Xel'naga Caverns. The major differences are by the natural choke and the third (fifth expansion on XC). I understand that it is a very balanced layout that is easy to work with, but I feel like I've seen it a lot, possibly too many times. The aesthetics are beautiful though!
EDIT: I'll give a more detailed analysis when I'm done with my physics homework.
|
holy balls thats a lot of airspace and exposed minlines!
|
On January 05 2012 09:08 sob3k wrote:
holy balls thats a lot of airspace and exposed minlines!
I'm pretty sure the image taken includes the whole map, and the actual bounds that you see in-game are much small; there isn't as much airspace as the picture shows.
|
On January 05 2012 09:10 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:08 sob3k wrote:
holy balls thats a lot of airspace and exposed minlines! I'm pretty sure the image taken includes the whole map, and the actual bounds that you see in-game are much small; there isn't as much airspace as the picture shows.
Indeed, just wanted to show the pretty border art.
|
I feel like the concept of multiple options for a third has taken too much of a front seat in your map. Essentially the ONLY thing interesting about your map is that you have to pick where to put your third. That isn't inherently a fault, but the issue is that none of them feel like very good choices, you either have to break rocks, expand directly towards your opponent, or choose a far expansion.
Besides that I think it could really benefit from more aesthetic distinction between levels (currently all 3 levels look identical).
|
I find it similar to a blend of Xel' Naga Caverns and Arid Plateau. I see 4 bases that hover around a punctuated center, and the same sort of 3rd layout as Caverns. I did spot the key difference though, being there's no immediately available backdoor to the natural expansion. I do particularly like how every expansion beyond the natural is a possible third, though. That aspect of it looks really carefully planned and is seriously cool. I like it, although I could easily see a pathway behind the 3rd into the natural, just like XNC. Like, maybe, extending from the 3rd just above the south main, behind the upper low ground 3rd, and into the upper natural, maybe putting a ramp into the low 3rd. Not necessary, just another potentiality I see in this map. Looks very good as it is though.
|
I think its just a bit too similar to XNC.
|
Yes, the mineral layout is like XNC, but it plays quite differently. Keep in mind there are only so many ways you can have a mineral layout. Its really how you go from base to base and the middle layout that makes a map unique and different. By all means, the middle and base to base interaction is much different here than on XNC, so expect different gameplay as well.
|
A very nice map. The map looks solid, but I think they are some flaw in the layout.
1. Doing a FFE is kinda hard because how the mineral placement is, you can easily run by the mineral and feels very easy to manoeuvre around the canon that will be place by the Protoss. So you should make the mineral placement less easy to go behind it.
2. Right now Zerg as a huge problem if they want to take an early third. I would suggest to bring the expo with the rock blocking the ramp a bit closer, but not to close. Second suggestion would be remove the rock and replace them with gold mineral(so a mineral block, but it becomes a bit like a destination remix).
3. The map right now doesn't feel very technical, reason why? Well most of the choke are around the same openness, try varying the openness of your choke. The middle feels very open.
I hope it helps make this even better than now.
|
Okay let me say that I rly like the way you did this backdoor with the path leading into it being very long and ending far out in the middle. The way it's designed it will rly promote mobile armies and harassment, cos it's so easy to get caught out of position when attacking and defending the base.
Some problems I see:
First of all remove rocks and add mineral blocks, like for example Destination. Right now I can't see any way Zerg can comfortably take an early third and defend it against the most simple pressure builds. Seems like a single voidray would shut down any early third attempt. So yeah mineral block would work out way better for Zerg, maybe with gold minerals like Grebliv did it 
Secondly I think it's too easy to lock Zerg down on 4 bases while having 4 bases yourself. When you get four bases as T/P thats probably the middle base and backdoor and you cover both of those from the middle ramp leading in the backdoor, and then you are rly close to Zerg's only fifth option. I would personally like it if you stretched the middle out a bit more and added a half base into the backdoor, similar to Destination (wait wtf, I just realized this is super similar to Destination.
One other concern I have is the lack of really contested middle bases (unlike Destination) and thus a map split scenario. I don't see much space for a base like that unless you stretch it out by a lot. Just pointing that out as something that imo could turn out a serious flaw.
Last but not least I find the variety in choke sizes to be very boring. You could do a lot more extreme size differences or some bridges like... Destination.
So to summarize, make everything more like Destination and this map will be very good!
Picture related:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 05 2012 09:23 wrl wrote:
I feel like the concept of multiple options for a third has taken too much of a front seat in your map. Essentially the ONLY thing interesting about your map is that you have to pick where to put your third. That isn't inherently a fault, but the issue is that none of them feel like very good choices, you either have to break rocks, expand directly towards your opponent, or choose a far expansion.
I agree here. Once a player has established a 3rd, there's only one strategic decision left, which is what base will be the 4th, which won't be much of a choice generally. If this map had one more base to add more shape to the late game progression, it would instantly be twice as good, imo. It currently lacks the strategic depth that would give it more longevity beyond a month or two of competitive play to "solve" it.
The placement of routes, open space, and long alternate paths in this no-tower design is well executed. It helps enlarge the map which would otherwise be kind of ho-hum in today's terms due to its size and base layout. Again, if the map size was slightly increased and another base added, the return on depth, size, and possibilities would be greater than just the % increase in dimensions / bases.
Regarding mineral block, I think zerg is fine taking the lefthand 3rd. But mineral block would be a fine substitute. However, it's a really bad idea to use a small number of mineral patches when it's simple to just use more. Terran mules let them attack through the back door like it's not there if you only have 2 patches, and gold is irrelevant. I don't think the mining time / resource return is a relevant part of the equation. The function of the mineral door style is to create a block that the defender can open at their choosing, and it should be prohibitively difficult for the attacker to open it.
Assuming this is what you want, I strongly recommend a series of small denomination patches, possibly stacked directly atop each other, although I don't think that's necesssary in most cases. This most closely mirrors the BW equivalent (rewarding the use of multiple workers -- mules are mitigated as much as possible) and stacking is unnecessary. Unstacked clearly communicates the state of the door.
+ Show Spoiler [example image] +. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NTIrr.jpg)
|
this map looks amazing! I like this layout, although similar to XNC, you've made it better with an easier to take natural base.
|
While I don't think this map is as polished/innovative/exciting as Scorching Dawn, it's still a very solid map.
Personally, the only thing that I think could be done to improve the map for me (as in, in my opinion as a zerg player and map-maker) would be to rotate the natural slightly and fine a way to make the natural still FFEable while not having the rocks on the ramp to the third. While not necessary, it would help encourage beyond two-base play. As it stands, the map is playable, but none of the thirds are particularly attractive.
One lies much closer to the opponent, one is very far away, and one has rocks stopping you from effectively taking it quickly as zerg. Since that third is the most easily defensible for zerg, the rocks become especially annoying.
For the far third, to defend both the third and the natural, a player has to move nearly as far as their opponent to defend both openings. For the central third, while the defender doesn't have to move very far compared to the attacker, the possibility of counterattacks from many angles makes the base less attractive. The counter-clockwise third then seems the most attractive defensively, but the rocks need to be opened up. That's kind of a more in depth reasoning behind why I would like the rocks gone, even if it messes up the defensive capabilities of that base slightly (only slightly).
However.
One thing I really like about this map is how the options for thirds affect gameplay. The choice of third can suit gameplay very well. For example, a zerg going ling/infestor vs. terran would be week to drops. But if they take the far third, their main becomes very defended from drops because of the bases on all non-map-edge sides. That's just one example, but I could see how the option of thirds affects gameplay a tad more than people realize.
In the end, thank you for making this map. Not only because it's a very cool map, but it forced me to think very critically about a lot of aspects of map making. It's really spurred my creativity I think, and not many maps do that. Good luck on future map endeavors.
|
I'm actually kind of surprised about the serious disliking of the rocks. Sure they make the low ground third harder for zerg to take early on, but aside the rocks that third has zerg written all over it. Only 2 creep tumors away, far away from enemy, super safe, and it's wide open. Where I certainly love all the feedback, here is what I'm thinking...
In a PvZ or TvZ scenario, removing the rocks all together would make denying an early zerg third very difficult if not impossible. The rocks are mostly there so zerg can't take a super safe early third. If you're going to take an early third, there must be risk. I don't feel being able to take a super early and super safe third would be too balanced. So, if you want a super safe third, break the rocks. If you want an early third, take the one along the main. Its three creep tumors away, and is further from the enemy, just not super safe. Chances are however if you're looking to take an early third, the Protoss or Terran is doing something where they won't be able to do much to punish it anyway, such as FFE.
Replacing the rocks with a mineral block pretty much ruins the potential of the backdoor being used for aggression. It is already super risky to take down those rocks and use the backdoor for aggression, I don't want it to be nearly impossible. If I were to put mineral blocks there however, this is what I think would happen, once more referring to PvZ and TvZ since I think these match ups would have the most impact. Protoss and terran take the forward third, then the fourth along the main. By securing those two bases their natural and main is nearly untouchable with the exception of mutas and drops. Thus, forcing Zerg into two strategies, which isn't something I really want. With rocks instead of mineral block, Zerg can still use their quick ground units to bust down the rocks and put aggression on the natural. Thus, giving Protoss and Terran something else to worry about.
For now, I'll keep the rocks and see how test games play out with Zerg. However, adding another base is a consideration, and something I will keep in mind during test games. I may post a rough layout with an extra base and see how it plays. Once again, thanks for all the feedback and more is always welcome!
|
I agree about the zerg 3rd and the role of those rocks against 4 base security.
|
Is this supposed to be a Xel Naga Caverns clone? It's a beautiful map, but the layout has already been done...
|
On January 05 2012 17:39 ClysmiC wrote:
Is this supposed to be a Xel Naga Caverns clone? It's a beautiful map, but the layout has already been done...
Read my previous post...
On January 05 2012 10:01 Timetwister22 wrote:
Yes, the mineral layout is like XNC, but it plays quite differently. Keep in mind there are only so many ways you can have a mineral layout. Its really how you go from base to base and the middle layout that makes a map unique and different. By all means, the middle and base to base interaction is much different here than on XNC, so expect different gameplay as well.
|
I'm absolutely in love with this maps lay out.
But I do agree; put a sixth ase somewhere. I would recommend it next to what would sort of be the fifth now, even more to the outside than the current fifth.
Preferably 2 base that can be reasonably taken by both sides. All the bases now are reasonably uncontested.
|
I hate the thirds. Like, completely and utterly, because none of them are really holdable as zerg vs a lot of things toss and terran can throw, like against stargate play, marine tank play, and mostly every strong 2-base push.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QP3P2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OlGsE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/74voy.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/42ijF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ib5wn.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XVsGF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gJPu3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6taE5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R8yBv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z4XOL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fdWD5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E6jLh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uI9Cr.png)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/6/6d/188_Destination.jpg)
