|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOnh3.jpg)
[M] (2) Skartaris by Samro 0.1 (EU)
Overview
+ Show Spoiler +
Information
Minimalistic 4-spawn map with sixteen regular bases and no watchtower on 152x152.
Comment
+ Show Spoiler +Burning Altar had a nice and simple concept I was not able to port over into a 16base map. However Skartaris has a very similar mechanic with the rocks and probably it is a better implementation ofv the concept, because here the rocks are less important and the centre is less complex.
Skartaris' basic concept is a path along the outside of the map running through all bases - except the nats and mains obviously. In the middle is a wide open centre that connects via a small birdge to an again quite open area infront of the nat.
Images
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/24pCB.jpg) main ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ixue.jpg) nat ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/asbFL.jpg) cw third ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8IU2i.jpg) ccw third
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: the n2n in close indeed is kinda short, but i ca get it up to 119.x with an additional rock setup that does not change cross distance. will be implemented if needed.
|
This map concept is exactly what you were talking about with the rocks and nat2nat in Twilight Overworld thread. XD
Everything fits together better and better the more you look at it, nice job.
I don't like the drop / mutalisk safe zones outside the main (especially between the nat and ccw 3rd) but that may be my personal preference.
oh and excellent colors
|
Excellent work as always, Samro. Oversaturating the mapping community I see. ^.^
I really like the dynamic center. It's something I would've liked to do on Night Light but couldn't due to expansion layout. It's really nice to see a very well done 4p rotational 16 base map that's still unique and interesting because, while the center is a strong position, it's not too strong because it has a nice wide base before it gets to the ramps. Overall a very nice map, nice flow, nice aesthetics, nice layout. Very well done.
|
If protoss spawns clockwise,and zerg spawns counterclockwise, the protoss can easily expand toward the zerg and defend it. If vise versa, where protoss spawns CCW and zerg CW, then the protoss can't really expand toward the zerg very easily at all. Here are some pretty pictures to hopefully explain a bit better:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bDfMo.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zb3hI.jpg) Circle indicates army. Forgot to label it...
Not sure if this is a positional imbalance though. Quite frankly I'm bad at telling the difference between positional imbalance and just forcing players to play differently depending on spawn positions. However, I will say it's not something I entirely like about the map.
Overall though it's a nice map. The middle layout and the aesthetics are especially pretty sick! Reminds me of Diablo 2 a bit...
|
I think generally Protoss is ambivalent about expanding towards the zerg with their 3rd. If they are going strictly ling muta it's probably good, if the map allows it, but otherwise it's usually much nicer to have an easily defended 3rd that's far for roach/ling reinforce to reach. Protoss will probably take the ccw 3rd most of the time regardless of spawn here, because the cw walking distance is so exposed and a bit farther.
I wouldn't really call it imbalanced from the picture, definitely something that would make itself known after some games.
|
I've always thought protoss should always expand toward zerg to make it easier to counter after fending off an attack. Gives less time for the zerg to remax. Though, if I'm wrong and it doesn't really matter, then replace protoss with terran. Terran certainly wants to expand toward zerg to make reinforcing quicker and easier.
|
On February 20 2012 11:25 Timetwister22 wrote:If protoss spawns clockwise,and zerg spawns counterclockwise, the protoss can easily expand toward the zerg and defend it. If vise versa, where protoss spawns CCW and zerg CW, then the protoss can't really expand toward the zerg very easily at all. Here are some pretty pictures to hopefully explain a bit better: + Show Spoiler +Circle indicates army. Forgot to label it... Not sure if this is a positional imbalance though. Quite frankly I'm bad at telling the difference between positional imbalance and just forcing players to play differently depending on spawn positions. However, I will say it's not something I entirely like about the map. Overall though it's a nice map. The middle layout and the aesthetics are especially pretty sick! Reminds me of Diablo 2 a bit...
A Protoss spawning in the bottom right could just take the 3rd base just north of his natural, which would change the positioning completely and make it alot easier to defend from a zerg in the bottom left. ? I don't usually play toss is there some reason you need to expand towards a zerg
anyway, I really like the map. The texturing is awesome in how well it fits the colors floating around the map. I'd much prefer this map to more than half the ladder map pool atm
|
On February 20 2012 14:03 Timetwister22 wrote:
I've always thought protoss should always expand toward zerg to make it easier to counter after fending off an attack. Gives less time for the zerg to remax. Though, if I'm wrong and it doesn't really matter, then replace protoss with terran. Terran certainly wants to expand toward zerg to make reinforcing quicker and easier.
Yeah, I should have mentioned this because it's definitely applicable to TvZ. But in that case PF changes the dynamic of how punishable the 3rd is based on reinforce distance and openness vulnerability, mostly lessening the danger. This constrains the terran nonetheless from feeling as free to take an OC for the 3rd, and affects their positioning options of course.
|
Now, this is a 4p map. There are certain standards for how many bases and how big a 4p and a 2p can be, respectively. Now there's a good reason to have those, because players knows what to expect. However, if a 4p is accepted with 16 bases, short rush distances, 150x150 playable map size, mains as a 4th, 5th expo, etc. Why can't we make 2p maps with the same standards?
I believe the simple answer is just that it's not standardized. And partly, a 4p that isn't 4-ways rota or mirrored symmetry would LOOK too complex - would be harder to read. But all this being true - my point is - wouldn't a map breaking those standards still be very playable? And not only 2on1s, but 2p with 16 bases and the like.
I realize this is a bit off-topic, by Sam encouraged me to bring it up here.
Do you think 16 bases 4p rota is no longer viable in the current meta game?
|
On February 20 2012 11:25 Timetwister22 wrote:If protoss spawns clockwise,and zerg spawns counterclockwise, the protoss can easily expand toward the zerg and defend it. If vise versa, where protoss spawns CCW and zerg CW, then the protoss can't really expand toward the zerg very easily at all. Here are some pretty pictures to hopefully explain a bit better: + Show Spoiler +Circle indicates army. Forgot to label it... Not sure if this is a positional imbalance though. Quite frankly I'm bad at telling the difference between positional imbalance and just forcing players to play differently depending on spawn positions. However, I will say it's not something I entirely like about the map. Overall though it's a nice map. The middle layout and the aesthetics are especially pretty sick! Reminds me of Diablo 2 a bit...
I am unsure if I would expand forward as Protoss here and i doubt it actually is a positional imbalance that affects gameplay much.
Here is a suggestion that should balance it out though. When you take the base or both you will have to decide if you want one or both rocks down. maybe that is even more true to the concept.
+ Show Spoiler +
On February 20 2012 08:57 EatThePath wrote:
This map concept is exactly what you were talking about with the rocks and nat2nat in Twilight Overworld thread. XD
Everything fits together better and better the more you look at it, nice job.
I don't like the drop / mutalisk safe zones outside the main (especially between the nat and ccw 3rd) but that may be my personal preference.
oh and excellent colors
On February 20 2012 09:08 RumbleBadger wrote:
Excellent work as always, Samro. Oversaturating the mapping community I see. ^.^
I really like the dynamic center. It's something I would've liked to do on Night Light but couldn't due to expansion layout. It's really nice to see a very well done 4p rotational 16 base map that's still unique and interesting because, while the center is a strong position, it's not too strong because it has a nice wide base before it gets to the ramps. Overall a very nice map, nice flow, nice aesthetics, nice layout. Very well done.
On February 20 2012 15:46 TheFish7 wrote:
A Protoss spawning in the bottom right could just take the 3rd base just north of his natural, which would change the positioning completely and make it alot easier to defend from a zerg in the bottom left. ? I don't usually play toss is there some reason you need to expand towards a zerg
anyway, I really like the map. The texturing is awesome in how well it fits the colors floating around the map. I'd much prefer this map to more than half the ladder map pool atm
Thanks for the kind words. I felt like there are some things in 16base maps we have not done yet in a good way and i dod not want to let some ideas from BA go. This map might be easier to play on than BA really and I am quit content with its design.
On February 20 2012 21:14 Meltage wrote:
Now, this is a 4p map. There are certain standards for how many bases and how big a 4p and a 2p can be, respectively. Now there's a good reason to have those, because players knows what to expect. However, if a 4p is accepted with 16 bases, short rush distances, 150x150 playable map size, mains as a 4th, 5th expo, etc. Why can't we make 2p maps with the same standards?
I believe the simple answer is just that it's not standardized. And partly, a 4p that isn't 4-ways rota or mirrored symmetry would LOOK too complex - would be harder to read. But all this being true - my point is - wouldn't a map breaking those standards still be very playable? And not only 2on1s, but 2p with 16 bases and the like.
I realize this is a bit off-topic, by Sam encouraged me to bring it up here.
Do you think 16 bases 4p rota is no longer viable in the current meta game?
I think the most important difference between 2spawn and 4spawn maps is that while you have to stretch out quite a bit on the bigger maps, you can expand into natural expansions and mains that grant safety to a certain degree (drops, reinforcing paths, etc.)
having not more than 12 bases on 12spawn maps guarantees a relative small mapsize and "controllability". If we had 16base 2spawn maps with or without single entrance bases like on 4spawn maps, there can be lot of things going unnoticed, space becomes much harder to control and in a way, control of specific spaces is less important. so maybe 10 is what actually is needed, 12 is possible and 14 is the absolut maximum (but then it might be time to introduce islands, more half bases, etc. > that again changes everything)
The thing I would like to discuss does not concern 4spawn maps so much, so I would almost like to link back  to the mapthread for (2) Ashes and talk about complexity, area of control and number of bases/overall saturation.
|
I like the second set of rocks. That helps a lot. Though, can't help but feel the same way. Maybe because its on the lowground? Not sure. I guess ill just always take the ccw third. Though, for Terran it is still kind of an issue, but hey, siege tanks and planetary fortresses are pretty good....
|
As for the base quantity debate, I think it really just has to do with area control and readability.
Mains and nats of other spawn points can be controlled by one choke. Then on say a 16 base rotational symmetry map (standard) there are two bases in between your main/nat and the one you are expanding into. That leaves 6 bases taken with probably around 4 choke points to cover (1 for main/nat, 1 for third, 1 for fourth, 1 for 5/6). Like Samro said, it's much easier to control space and feel safe on this type of map. Beyond those 6 bases, the expansions usually get too close to the opponent for them to be easily taken, so the 16 map plays more like a 12 base map, where each player gets around 6 bases.
As for readability, this is what stops a 2p map from having 16 bases. Beyond the first 6 bases, the maps just get confusing and convoluted. Even if the next 2 bases came off of the same choke as the 6th base did, it would simply be more work than its worth and would allow for games to go on forever.
No matter what usually maps play like they only have up to six bases. It's pretty rare to see a seventh base taken (I guess MAYBE on Antiga a player might take the center base as a seventh to gain an advantage over the opponent, but that's only plausible because the center is such a strong position to hold on that map). So in the end, there's really no point in making a map with more than 6 bases for each side, it's just that because of the way four player maps are, they usually play like each player gets 6 bases, and the last four bases are never taken.
|
Have to post again because I didnt exactly comment on the map in my last post.
I must say this is certainly an improvement over BA beacuse of the closer thirds.
I dont really buy how rocks fixes nat-to-nat rsh distance - beacuse too close distance is still a problem mid-late game once the rocks are down. I like the thirds layout overall, beacuse of the distinction - they will play differently. I also like the open area in front of the nat with the somewhat tighter choke towards the centre. I think it promotes removing the rocks by attacker (depending on spawn setup?) to engage a defending army there. I can also see how defender removes the rocks - to better defend the CCW third - engage an enemy army before it reaches the base.
The middle looks like it has no map feature - which is currently seen as a good thing by some, the argument being that there needs to be more positioning in battles. I honestly don't know what to think about that. But I can buy into that the map needs a non-complex middle.
|
too bad Felix comments never appeared here, but he commented on overall size of each base (thirds, fourths) in comparison to choke size. This is something i will look after, soon. It will be smaller changes to carve out some more space and move mineral lines, especially to make the ccw third more comfortable.
|
Yeah, you just need to cut some unpathable to make more space for armies moving past CCs. However, I like how you're encouraged to remove the rocks to better defend the CCW third?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YNPAh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JJQD3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eatH6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yUMru.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CwCEi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/goPFY.jpg)
