Distances: - Main to main: 47 seconds (in game) - Nat to nat: 37 seconds (in game)
Xel'Naga towers: - None
Size: - 151x122 Playable
The first odd thing you may notice about the map is the third with a ramp that faces away from the natural. While at first this may make the third harder to hold it balances out quite nicely for two reasons. The third is fairly close to the natural and your opponent has to travel quite a far distance in order to attack your third. These factors combined with the fact that the natural ramp is 3 tiles while compared to the 2 of the third may make your natural more vulnerable than your third.
The cliffs that surround the centre base is unpathable. Many engagements that focus on taking out a third or a fourth base will be determined by careful positioning around these cliffs. Since there are no watch towers flanking, counter attacks and harassment are slightly stronger options on this map; especially when combined with the cliffs around the third and centre bases.
For the decoration on the map I wanted to create a spooky forest. To distinguish it from the rest of the jungle maps I tried to stay away from dirt textures and chose a color scheme that is fairly cold. The minimal use of textures (only 5) and the use of textures from three completely different packs (and trees from Aiur) led to a fairly unique look for the map. The texturing isn't quite done yet so expect it to be updated over the next few days.
On January 07 2012 19:42 Seeker wrote: 1 word: B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L
ಠ_ಠ
I guess we reached the same point with 2p maps as with 4p maps, where everything looks the same
this. the map looks beautiful and all but Im kinda fed up with this concept of 2p maps. Tiny feature like third's ramp doesnt make it freshier than something like Dual Sight. gj in designing though
I dont like that the thirds ramp faces away from the natural. The opponent could easily plant his army there to cut off the third from the nat. (Im seeing myself do just this in a PvZ)
On January 07 2012 22:44 CaptainCrush wrote: Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO....
I fail to see the resemblance
On January 08 2012 04:29 Gl!tch wrote: I dont like that the thirds ramp faces away from the natural. The opponent could easily plant his army there to cut off the third from the nat. (Im seeing myself do just this in a PvZ)
I don't see how that's a problem. If an army gets to that point on any other map, then the expansion would be dead anyway so it doesn't really matter. Not to mention how open that leaves you to counters.
Considering the distance from the natural to the opponent's third, I don't actually think it's all that much harder to hold than a map like Shakuras, or something. I think it's fine, and kind of interesting. Despite being fairly central, they don't control the map that well, like maybe Xel Naga Caverns or Jungle Basin or something, but only the shortest attack path.
People say this map is a lot like other maps, but I think it has some subtle things about it that interest me. The ability to swing around behind when a Terran takes a planetary in the middle makes for some interesting positioning.
I think it might just be a little too small. I would love just a little bit of extra width added to the center line, which would make defending all the expos just a little easier and to increase the rush distance.
On January 07 2012 22:44 CaptainCrush wrote: Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO....
I'm starting to think this specific comment should get a warning, sort of like people posting one-liner responses to strategy [H] threads.
I agree with flop that this map is overall uninspiring However, I think it's our responsibility as serious critiquers to see past the "everything looks the same" we've reached with many 2p and 4p maps. It's time to start really analyzing the minor details and how they are combined, because that is the level of the craft (mapping) and metagame (play) these days.
One thing I really like is that the center bases are actually stable, if dangerous. Much more than Shakuras or XNC, or Scrap Station 3rds ::shudder::, which of course isn't saying much but I think it's important to note because not many maps include stable central bases, they usually are there as terran or protoss bases exclusively, or desperation / victory stomp zerg bases.
I also like the concept of the long route to the 3rd which the 3rd ramp plays up, as neobowman addressed. Nevertheless, I think it might prove a little too hard for PvZ against mutas with lings easily threatening both the front and the 3rd while mutas put the stalkers out of position and then smash the walls / cannons / zealots guarding against the lings. This is exacerbated by the long attack distance with four huge runby / flanking opportunities and no towers, and the difficulty in effectively assaulting either the zerg natural or 3rd up a ramp with mass spines / lings.
That's my hunch and I would specifically test on that a bit if you can.
I'm curious if you tried towers and didn't like them? This is certainly a great map without them (preferred) but the following tower arrangement seems alright too, if a little too nice for tank play. (It would help PvZ imo.)
On January 08 2012 08:16 EatThePath wrote: I agree with flop that this map is overall uninspiring However, I think it's our responsibility as serious critiquers to see past the "everything looks the same" we've reached with many 2p and 4p maps. It's time to start really analyzing the minor details and how they are combined, because that is the level of the craft (mapping) and metagame (play) these days.
One thing I really like is that the center bases are actually stable, if dangerous. Much more than Shakuras or XNC, or Scrap Station 3rds ::shudder::, which of course isn't saying much but I think it's important to note because not many maps include stable central bases, they usually are there as terran or protoss bases exclusively, or desperation / victory stomp zerg bases.
...
I'm curious if you tried towers and didn't like them? This is certainly a great map without them (preferred) but the following tower arrangement seems alright too, if a little too nice for tank play. (It would help PvZ imo.)
The exact reason I don't like XWTs on the map is because it would either make the centre base too powerful when held of too hard to hold. I think you placed the towers at the optimal position but in the event of an assault on the centre base it pretty much makes flanks impossible due to the amount of vision one unit can give for the entire army. I really wanted to make the attacking army vulnerable when trying to engage the centre base to balance out the vulnerabilities of the position of the base. By adding watch towers the attacking army loses that vulnerability.
On January 08 2012 08:16 EatThePath wrote: I also like the concept of the long route to the 3rd which the 3rd ramp plays up, as neobowman addressed. Nevertheless, I think it might prove a little too hard for PvZ against mutas with lings easily threatening both the front and the 3rd while mutas put the stalkers out of position and then smash the walls / cannons / zealots guarding against the lings. This is exacerbated by the long attack distance with four huge runby / flanking opportunities and no towers, and the difficulty in effectively assaulting either the zerg natural or 3rd up a ramp with mass spines / lings.
That's my hunch and I would specifically test on that a bit if you can.
This came up when the map was being created and it's definitely a thing we're going to test for.
On January 07 2012 22:44 CaptainCrush wrote: Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO....
I'm starting to think this specific comment should get a warning, sort of like people posting one-liner responses to strategy [H] threads.
I agree with flop that this map is overall uninspiring However, I think it's our responsibility as serious critiquers to see past the "everything looks the same" we've reached with many 2p and 4p maps. It's time to start really analyzing the minor details and how they are combined, because that is the level of the craft (mapping) and metagame (play) these days.
I hope you're joking.... I honestly think it looks like xel'naga caverns with grass and Im not a fan. There is no reason that I can't post that and there is no law, rule, or other governing feature ANYWHERE that made u some sort of mod or even map critiquing authority. Get off your soap box, at the end of the day this is still a game and I'm entitled to my own opinion just like you.
In the OP it states that it is published on NA? Does this mean we are supposed to be able to search for it and be able to create a game? I was looking forward to trying it out but it doesn't seem to show up in search results.
On January 08 2012 22:43 PlaycaLm wrote: This is such a pretty map!
In the OP it states that it is published on NA? Does this mean we are supposed to be able to search for it and be able to create a game? I was looking forward to trying it out but it doesn't seem to show up in search results.
I probably forgot to make it public, check again in 20 minutes.
Map updated, foliage added, trees added to the centre to make it more natural.
Low ground decoration coming next, doodads on the cliffs surrounding the centre expansions to make it more clear it's unpathable. More texture refinement.
I'm glad most people enjoy the map, it's now public!
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
On January 09 2012 04:57 a176 wrote: So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
What? I see some similarities, but those all play out very differently. Totally different maps.
On January 09 2012 05:43 TibblesEvilCat wrote: i feel this map has a harder to get 3rd, due to pure distance making, airplay from 2 base from terran and protoss hard for the zerg to defend vs
On January 09 2012 04:57 a176 wrote: So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
I agree with you, all the maps seem so similar, except for aesthetics. I was going to make a comment that while this is a really pretty map, it is very familiar to what has been seen already... I guess I'm wanting a return of four spawn maps. Too much 2 spawn stuff.
On January 09 2012 04:57 a176 wrote: So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
That question doesn't sound serious at all. Of course we communicate, we've know each other for almost 2 years . I think you meant to complain again that the maps are too similar. Yes, they are quite similar and boring. However there aren't many options for expansion layouts and we're all trying to do some new stuff. Because we have 5 similar maps doesn't mean they're all going to be played.
I'm not a big fan of middle bases, give's toss and especially terran such a strong position on the map, where they can get ressources while parking their deathball in a strong position.
Overall a solid map but nothing really interesting.
Map updated (aesthetics). Played a test game on it, went well. Flanking is super important if you're going for a ground based army. Blink stalkers are also really strong on the map, and positioning is important. No Xel'Naga Towers and the long route to the third makes for a really interesting game. I need to experiment with going behind the centre bases more. Warp prisms are great if the Zerg doesn't go mutas.
On January 12 2012 21:47 Ragoo wrote: I'm not a big fan of middle bases, give's toss and especially terran such a strong position on the map, where they can get ressources while parking their deathball in a strong position.
Overall a solid map but nothing really interesting.
I played a bunch of games today and watched many more (between gm players). I can say it feels different than the other 2p maps out there. Positioning on the map is much more important. I think the center bases might be a better option for toss and terran taking a 4th. Overall the map played very very well. If you haven't tried it already I suggest you give it a go.
Couple thoughts of mine. How has the 3rd been playing out in your testing? It seems for PvZ grabbing a 3rd anywhere could be a little tough. Yes, there is only 1 double wide ramp into the third but there is still a pretty long ground distance to walk which has me worried. It seems that unless you completely wall off the 3rd at the top of the ramp you would have to set your army outside your natural which is a terrible spot since it's extremely open. Just thinking how it would be if those 3rds were rotated say 45 degrees clockwise.
I only see Terran ever taking the bases in the middle. Protoss won't be able to since it's extremely open as well as puts you in the middle of no where, you'd feel a lot safer expanding around the map. If you were going to take that forward base you'd have to park your entire army there. Terran could at least pfort it up and tank it up which is nice, although then the rush distance from the middle base to the natural seems like it might be a little too short. I don't see zerg taking that either because they don't want to expand toward their opponent either.
I don't see any LoS blockers? Is there a reason for that? Seems like you could create some neat features by adding some. Off the top of my head maybe on the lowground between the natural & third in that little passage between them, kinda like shakuras. Or maybe a line of them from the hole in the middle of the map to the little cliffs to the east and west of the hole. Possibly some up on the high ground in the 3rd to create a little area to proxy buildings / hide tech?
Overall I think it's a well thought out map & as Wnio said, I love that all the cliffs are wavy.
this has the exact same base layout as Cloud Kingdom, the only differnece are the cliffs and the asthetics, but overall i think it woudl still produce similar games
On January 26 2012 18:27 EcstatiC wrote: this has the exact same base layout as Cloud Kingdom, the only differnece are the cliffs and the asthetics, but overall i think it woudl still produce similar games
Well the expansion pattern as well as layout are really different, the only thing that is similar is base placement but progression through them is not comparable really. If you take the third on CK and this at the same place you're playing one map wrong (or at least very off-beat).
You could call this a split-pathing version of ck with different expansion progression at best if you like clasping at straws.
On January 26 2012 18:17 SidianTheBard wrote: Couple thoughts of mine. How has the 3rd been playing out in your testing? It seems for PvZ grabbing a 3rd anywhere could be a little tough. Yes, there is only 1 double wide ramp into the third but there is still a pretty long ground distance to walk which has me worried. It seems that unless you completely wall off the 3rd at the top of the ramp you would have to set your army outside your natural which is a terrible spot since it's extremely open. Just thinking how it would be if those 3rds were rotated say 45 degrees clockwise.
I only see Terran ever taking the bases in the middle. Protoss won't be able to since it's extremely open as well as puts you in the middle of no where, you'd feel a lot safer expanding around the map. If you were going to take that forward base you'd have to park your entire army there. Terran could at least pfort it up and tank it up which is nice, although then the rush distance from the middle base to the natural seems like it might be a little too short. I don't see zerg taking that either because they don't want to expand toward their opponent either.
I don't see any LoS blockers? Is there a reason for that? Seems like you could create some neat features by adding some. Off the top of my head maybe on the lowground between the natural & third in that little passage between them, kinda like shakuras. Or maybe a line of them from the hole in the middle of the map to the little cliffs to the east and west of the hole. Possibly some up on the high ground in the 3rd to create a little area to proxy buildings / hide tech?
Overall I think it's a well thought out map & as Wnio said, I love that all the cliffs are wavy.
Actually the third has never been a problem in testing. Most players are able to get up a third and holding works really well since it's a 2x ramp. The actual problem comes from taking a 4th with the corner expansions being a little too far for Terran and Toss. The zergs have prefered to expand towards the corner expansions due to their higher mobility.
LoS blockers are overkill on this map. The map already has low vision due to the lack of XWTs. Some of the feedback I've heard was it was hard to keep track of attacking armies as they moved out. The map requires a different approach to scouting (like bw). Putting ovies on the cliffs everywhere is essential for victory as well as using the occasional marine or probe to scout.
The lowground between the natural and the third doesn't really come up in real gameplay so I don't see the harm in doing so but it seems to be making the map more complicated than it should be for no reason.
I'll upload some replays to the original post tonight.
I'm liking ulaan grunge + grass textures with the additional decorating.
So Gwen, I'm also working on a map with no towers, and I want to ask you if you feel you have to make special dispensation for that. How did it work out here? Does it favour one race over another? Depending on the builds maybe? Should SC2 maps always try to have towers, because the game is better with them, or is it just an option and we haven't well explored the choice not to use them? I'm looking for a general view on the issue to help me understand my own map better, and also a more specific answer about what it means on Brineclaw. I'm going to go watch replays now to see how the players position their armies and if they are scouting more actively to compensate for lack of towers. (This is the biggest thing I've noticed.)
On January 09 2012 04:57 a176 wrote: So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
What? I see some similarities, but those all play out very differently. Totally different maps.
Yeah, all but the first have a pretty different layout. There's only so much you can do with 2 spawn points (that we know of....) before you start making maps that have such an overwhelming advantage for a race.
With that being said, I do think that the OP map, and the first map listed by a176 are pretty similar, along with a few other 2p maps that have appeared recently. This is pretty common, not just in map making, but being creative in general. People have to let map makers make similar maps until they can refine the technique of a new layout until it becomes something different.
Think map making like writing music - at first you pretty much compose what you've heard until you have a grasp of all the techniques already being used. After that, you will start to see that your style of composing will start to differ from others, even those that influence you, because now you understand the technique.
It's kind of a hard concept to understand if you're not already someone who does map making, draws, composes music, or anything else at a deeper level than most, but in time, we will see this template of 2p maps disappear, and another one will take its place.
On February 04 2012 06:14 EatThePath wrote: I'm liking ulaan grunge + grass textures with the additional decorating.
So Gwen, I'm also working on a map with no towers, and I want to ask you if you feel you have to make special dispensation for that. How did it work out here? Does it favour one race over another? Depending on the builds maybe? Should SC2 maps always try to have towers, because the game is better with them, or is it just an option and we haven't well explored the choice not to use them? I'm looking for a general view on the issue to help me understand my own map better, and also a more specific answer about what it means on Brineclaw. I'm going to go watch replays now to see how the players position their armies and if they are scouting more actively to compensate for lack of towers. (This is the biggest thing I've noticed.)
A map with no towers is really hard to work with. Some feedback include (from memory): "It feels as if the terran player disappears when they move out." (from a zerg perspective).
But that was the first zvt played on the map. I think it works out more or less evenly. Zerg gets to play overlords on top of cliffs and see drops earlier while terran can scan and kill the ovies much like in bw. Toss has observers which isn't too big of a deal but the pvp matchup on this match is something I want to keep an eye on because of the lack of scouting options available. Honestly if the map is done right, with paths that each have their own advantage and disadvantages, in this case having a safe attack route to the third vs being able to cut the third from the main / nat, then I don't think having no XWTs is that bad. SC2 player *may* be a bit spoiled from XWTs doing the scouting for them. This map plays like a bw map in terms of scouting.
As for what it means specifically on Brineclaw: Zergs need to place their ovies on the cliffs carefully. Terrans might want to spend energy snipe the ovies in order to make drops less detectable. Toss has colossi and obersvers past the midgame so any ovies zerg has are going to be essentially dead. Zerg needs to have lings EVERYWHERE (this is actually pretty damn cool and fun to play with). Terran needs to use a bit more scans. Toss observer options are a bit more powerful.
By all means watch the replays I'm sure you'll enjoy them.
This seems like an improved version of Daybreak that will encourage a little bit more early game aggression as opposed to 99% passive games, since the linear 3rd is more difficult to hold.
Have you had any difficulties with zerg armies being forcefielded out of their third base? The single space ramp seems like it would strongly play into that. It also seems like it would be very easy for a protoss to defend their third against roaches in the same way.
On February 05 2012 00:08 XenoX101 wrote: Have you had any difficulties with zerg armies being forcefielded out of their third base? The single space ramp seems like it would strongly play into that. It also seems like it would be very easy for a protoss to defend their third against roaches in the same way.
On the test game (replay is posted) the toss went for forge fe while z was the aggressive one. The other zvp played on the map didn't really touch on the issue too hard (as in strategies didn't revolve around abusing it) but it is a strong tactic on the map. It's balanced out a little because Z can place Ovies on the cliffs and see the toss army move out if they're good at spreading ovies and positioning their army.
Toss defending their third base with wall off and sentries (mutas might be a good option) is definitely a thing (it happens in the replay posted) but zerg has more mobility and can sometimes catch the toss off guard. A lot of the map revolves around strategic positioning and a flanking. If the third is being abused too hard I'll make some changes but I need to get in some more games first. If you have time give it a try and tell me what you think.
I like the map a lot. It looks a bit 2 basey to me especially for protoss. But that's not necessarily the end of the world. Cloud Kingdom's a bit like that too, not quite as much though. I don't think these layouts are unoriginal and while lots of maps look similar, minor differences can be significant balance wise. Keep up the great work. I'll play this next time I custom.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBE6C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RNARV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fEAaO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SylSR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W78kk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rETdi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zeGOQ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n3X1a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aeQCq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wuQuv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6dcrS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7kTDN.jpg)
. I think you meant to complain again that the maps are too similar. Yes, they are quite similar and boring. However there aren't many options for expansion layouts and we're all trying to do some new stuff. Because we have 5 similar maps doesn't mean they're all going to be played.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fY2MZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oo569.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UW7Iu.jpg)
