|
ESV Avalon
Published on NA, EU, SEA
By TImetwister22
V 0.2
Concept
I have made yet another four player rotational symmetry map, though this time I decided to make things a bit more interesting with high ground central bases which can be taken as thirds.
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
Playable: 150x150
Main-Main:38sec
Nat-Nat:30sec
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +
Aesthetic Pictures
+ Show Spoiler +
Notable Features
-All positions enabled
-High ground central bases can comfortably be taken as a third by all races.
-Players can choose between the low ground third along their main or the high ground third in front of their natural.
-Low ground bases are barely siegable from high ground central bases, but with only 1 tank and with extended vision. The high ground central bases are siegable from both the middle and the low ground bases with vision.
-Xel'naga tower overlooks entire center.
Change Log
+ Show Spoiler +
As always, feedback is more than welcome 
|
distance to CW third seems ridiculously far? or did u intend for people to take the middle base as third?
also, map is excruciatingly generic
|
I really like the aesthetics and how you incorporated those Char plants (at least I think that they are Char plants) into the Aiur title set.
The map is a little generic in terms of expansion layout, but I think that the chokes and openness in different areas will make this map interesting.
|
On February 28 2012 10:36 a176 wrote:
distance to CW third seems ridiculously far? or did u intend for people to take the middle base as third?
also, map is excruciatingly generic
I believe the CW player is intended to take the center base. Imo that base could be even closer to the natural though.
And I don't find it to be that generic actually, considering the unique expansion layout idea (players taking different thirds).
|
Oh man, does this thing look cool. Really nice work!
Just out of curiosity, how many creep tumors does it take to connect the central 3rd?
|
If two players spawn bottom-left and bottom-right, the one who spawns on the bottom-right has a much safer third. I made an image to illustrate this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VhxVq.jpg)
(If you get image loading, you can see the image here)
Edit: I guess you intended the high ground as the 3rd, but it's still easier for red to defend that base than for pink to defend his version of it. Red could take that base as a third much more easily.
|
On February 28 2012 10:36 a176 wrote:
distance to CW third seems ridiculously far? or did u intend for people to take the middle base as third?
also, map is excruciatingly generic
Yeah, that's intended to be a third. Though, could you maybe expand on why the map is generic?
On February 28 2012 10:41 Antares777 wrote:I really like the aesthetics and how you incorporated those Char plants (at least I think that they are Char plants) into the Aiur title set. The map is a little generic in terms of expansion layout, but I think that the chokes and openness in different areas will make this map interesting.
Thanks! Indeed they are char plants.
On February 28 2012 10:43 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 10:36 a176 wrote:
distance to CW third seems ridiculously far? or did u intend for people to take the middle base as third?
also, map is excruciatingly generic I believe the CW player is intended to take the center base. Imo that base could be even closer to the natural though. And I don't find it to be that generic actually, considering the unique expansion layout idea (players taking different thirds).
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think I should bring it just a bit closer.
On February 28 2012 11:08 TheFish7 wrote:
Oh man, does this thing look cool. Really nice work!
Just out of curiosity, how many creep tumors does it take to connect the central 3rd?
Thanks! Technically it takes 3, however there is a 2 hex gap between the second creep tumor and the hatchery. For that very reason I might bring it closer. Would require some reworking of the terrain however to remove excess space behind the mineral line and re-proportion the area in front of the natural. Of course, I'd also have to touch up on the texturing as well. If anything, I could get this change out tomorrow if more really think it's an issue.
On February 28 2012 11:22 Ribbon wrote:If two players spawn bottom-left and bottom-right, the one who spawns on the bottom-right has a much safer third. I made an image to illustrate this: (If you get image loading, you can see the image here)
The central third is actually pretty safe considering you have a watchtower overlooking it and your opponent would have to go the long way around to attack in without being seen. In the case of both of those thirds, attacking them puts you super out of position. Thus, they're both pretty safe.
|
I don't really like the middle area.
The chokes all around it scream: avoid the middle (against bio and Zerg); and the gain for holding the middle is pretty much that you can watch over the middle. And even that is somewhat limited, because it is a lowground area.
Also: more water and fog (and apple trees), to justify the name. 
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I would hate to be CW of my opponent on this one as Z/P - T would be fine i guess. This map just shows how hard it actually is to pull of a rota concept where neither CW nor CCW spawn is favored. It's still a good map and better than most 4P out there but there're also some more well rounded 4P rota already.
I also think the minimap might just look dumb ingame when literally all areas use the same set of textures which will result in a bad readability (i favor maps where one can tell the different cliff levels (even on the minimap) more easily).
|
Made some changes for V 0.2. Only current concern now is that the area in front of the natural is too chokey, and it's about as chokey as I'm comfortable with. However, if play testing shows it's too chokey, I will gladly open it up and continue to do so until it's just right.
Overall changes:
-Changed area in front of natural.
-Moved central thirds closer to natural.
-Fixed a few bugs and issues caused by doodads.
|
On March 02 2012 11:43 Timetwister22 wrote:
Made some changes for V 0.2. Only current concern now is that the area in front of the natural is too chokey, and it's about as chokey as I'm comfortable with. However, if play testing shows it's too chokey, I will gladly open it up and continue to do so until it's just right.
Overall changes:
-Changed area in front of natural.
-Moved central thirds closer to natural.
-Fixed a few bugs and issues caused by doodads.
Looks like you've added some trees too. I like trees
|
spawn positions are very super unfair. Yes enemy going around the harder third isnt a problem, but defending vs harasment just seems like a joke. Good luck stimming marines from third to main and back defending vs mutalisk/helions. Oh god the aumont of turrets you must make.
|
On March 02 2012 12:48 Sea_Food wrote:
spawn positions are very super unfair. Yes enemy going around the harder third isnt a problem, but defending vs harasment just seems like a joke. Good luck stimming marines from third to main and back defending vs mutalisk/helions. Oh god the aumont of turrets you must make.
Both thirds have an equal harassment threat, so I'm not too sure what you mean. Both the high ground and the low ground third can easily be harassed by mutas and drops, so maybe you could clarify? A pretty picture could also help.
|
In the above attack/expand routes image, isn't just as easy for pink to launch an assault from their third to red's natural as it is for red to launch an assault from their natural to pink's third? Isn't it worse for red to have his natural attacked (leaving his main exposed, and possible core structures damaged or destroyed) than it is for pink to have his third (a relatively barren and expendable) base attacked?
|
On March 02 2012 13:24 Chargelot wrote:
In the above attack/expand routes image, isn't just as easy for pink to launch an assault from their third to red's natural as it is for red to launch an assault from their natural to pink's third? Isn't it worse for red to have his natural attacked (leaving his main exposed, and possible core structures damaged or destroyed) than it is for pink to have his third (a relatively barren and expendable) base attacked?
The map has been updated since then.
|
On March 02 2012 14:32 G_Wen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 13:24 Chargelot wrote:
In the above attack/expand routes image, isn't just as easy for pink to launch an assault from their third to red's natural as it is for red to launch an assault from their natural to pink's third? Isn't it worse for red to have his natural attacked (leaving his main exposed, and possible core structures damaged or destroyed) than it is for pink to have his third (a relatively barren and expendable) base attacked? The map has been updated since then.
My point was so far beyond the scope of this one map that if this map never existed my point would still be valid.
People do that sort of thing with almost every map. They always seem to forget that attack paths work both ways.
|
On March 02 2012 13:24 Chargelot wrote:
In the above attack/expand routes image, isn't just as easy for pink to launch an assault from their third to red's natural as it is for red to launch an assault from their natural to pink's third? Isn't it worse for red to have his natural attacked (leaving his main exposed, and possible core structures damaged or destroyed) than it is for pink to have his third (a relatively barren and expendable) base attacked?
Yes and no. The natural is easier to defend than the third, as it is simply designed that way. Also, its easier to reinforce because production facilities are located in the main. With that said, its much easier to deny a third and its potential income than denying an established natural. However, you can still attack the natural and do damage. You just do more damage when you attack the third and deny income. I suppose that's the best way to explain it. If I missed something, anyone is more than welcome to add on...
|
while i like this "new" approach of doing the bases on a 4spawn map i think the idea of a more centred cw third creates a positional imbalance that is difficult to handle.
still i think this forward or rather more centred third (or fourth) is something of interest really. When I think about my own 4spawn maps the idea of a forward base was always present, but never made it into the final versions, because it took a lot of space to include it and still it was imbalanced, because the centre of the map had a too big impact on how to hold the base and hence was of too much importance as a factor overall.
i think we maps like Skartaris that try to have two bases in between main+nat and main+nat might be easier to balance than your approach. there, both bases can be thirds and/or fourths in cw as well as ccw direction. this idea of two equaly "neutral" bases in between comes from 12base maps with one third in between both nats. also consider a map like artifice with a "neutral" base in between and a half base between each main and centre. i think both concepts tend to create more positionally balanced maps than layouts with one regular third and one third that is oriented towards the map's centre.
overalll your map is well worked through in many details, but there are other concepts that might have better chances to succeed really. i think it is great to see more poeple trying to do something different in 4spawn maps!
|
On March 02 2012 22:55 Samro225am wrote:
while i like this "new" approach of doing the bases on a 4spawn map i think the idea of a more centred cw third creates a positional imbalance that is difficult to handle.
still i think this forward or rather more centred third (or fourth) is something of interest really. When I think about my own 4spawn maps the idea of a forward base was always present, but never made it into the final versions, because it took a lot of space to include it and still it was imbalanced, because the centre of the map had a too big impact on how to hold the base and hence was of too much importance as a factor overall.
i think we maps like Skartaris that try to have two bases in between main+nat and main+nat might be easier to balance than your approach. there, both bases can be thirds and/or fourths in cw as well as ccw direction. this idea of two equaly "neutral" bases in between comes from 12base maps with one third in between both nats. also consider a map like artifice with a "neutral" base in between and a half base between each main and centre. i think both concepts tend to create more positionally balanced maps than layouts with one regular third and one third that is oriented towards the map's centre.
overalll your map is well worked through in many details, but there are other concepts that might have better chances to succeed really. i think it is great to see more poeple trying to do something different in 4spawn maps!
Where I entirely agree those layouts are much easier to balance, they are also a thousand times more boring. They've already been done, over and over and over again. Center bases are really the only way to truly create a unique four player layout. This may not have been the most executed, but its neat nevertheless and can play its role as a learning opportunity.
However, test games so far have gone very, very well. Zerg players don't really seem to have an issue with taking that central third when the spawn positions allow them to do so. They also don't have a hard time defending it, which is also good to see. We'll see how the map continues to play out, but so far its playing very smoothly.
|
good for you games played well so far. i wonder if these games ever went past taking third based?
while i really like - as i already said - what you do here, there are too many problems here. it is elegant and i poike the style, but there are many strange things coming together here in your layout.
while i like what you are trying to do, i have seen many maps being accused to be imba because of fewer problems. here is an image that might help display the significant positional imbalance that favours the player spawning in ccw position.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W0ra4.jpg)
1. imagne having a terran in ccw position (blue) who establishes some control early: the distance to his forward third with a PF seems to be shorter than the distance from the opponent's to pretty much anywhere. i would not make that pf actually, but just the opportunity, or rtaher the distance here speaks for itself.
2. exactly that base (12) is not neutral, because it would be ridiculous to take for the ccw player
3. no matter what race and play situation, the ccw player always has a much more compact base setup (look at 4 vs 4 bases especially).
4. the ccw player expands into the nat and main much easily/quicker. If the cw player wants to take the other nat as his 5th he would have to take a far away third.
5. when cw player (green) does not take mainhugging third he has to take the middle third or far away third which both are easier to attack than ccw player's third.
there is no solution how to change it, there is quite some imbalance here favouring the cw plaayer in any matchup.
oh, and before you blame other maps to be boring: 4spawn rota is kinda condisered imba anyways, so we mapmaker still have to proove in sc2 that rotationalmaps still work fine. A few month ago there were much too many 4spawn maps from the community. none made its way anywhere really and still blizzard considered a map like terminus for the next season. so i do not see why you want to do something interesting but positionally flawed while we still need a solid 4spawn map beside taldarimaltar (not saying that it is fine as it is).
|
On March 03 2012 01:07 Samro225am wrote:good for you games played well so far. i wonder if these games ever went past taking third based? while i really like - as i already said - what you do here, there are too many problems here. it is elegant and i poike the style, but there are many strange things coming together here in your layout. while i like what you are trying to do, i have seen many maps being accused to be imba because of fewer problems. here is an image that might help display the significant positional imbalance that favours the player spawning in ccw position. 1. imagne having a terran in ccw position (blue) who establishes some control early: the distance to his forward third with a PF seems to be shorter than the distance from the opponent's to pretty much anywhere. i would not make that pf actually, but just the opportunity, or rtaher the distance here speaks for itself. 2. exactly that base (12) is not neutral, because it would be ridiculous to take for the ccw player 3. no matter what race and play situation, the ccw player always has a much more compact base setup (look at 4 vs 4 bases especially). 4. the ccw player expands into the nat and main much easily/quicker. If the cw player wants to take the other nat as his 5th he would have to take a far away third. 5. when cw player (green) does not take mainhugging third he has to take the middle third or far away third which both are easier to attack than ccw player's third. there is no solution how to change it, there is quite some imbalance here favouring the cw plaayer in any matchup. oh, and before you blame other maps to be boring: 4spawn rota is kinda condisered imba anyways, so we mapmaker still have to proove in sc2 that rotationalmaps still work fine. A few month ago there were much too many 4spawn maps from the community. none made its way anywhere really and still blizzard considered a map like terminus for the next season. so i do not see why you want to do something interesting but positionally flawed while we still need a solid 4spawn map beside taldarimaltar (not saying that it is fine as it is).
I entirely understand your point with the picture you drew, and I agree. However, that is not how players tend to expand on this map. Here are some pictures that show how players tend to expand, which eliminates many of the issues you bring up.
Players on 3 base:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VY5K2.jpg) Players take different thirds. Yes, even zerg players will take the third red did since it's close and still away from opponent Where one could argue that red's third is easier to attack than blue's, blue's is easier to harass with siege tanks, infested terran, and warpins from the high ground. Also, attacking either of the thirds puts you far out of position and takes you through tower range. You could go around tower range, but then you're so out of position that doing such is probably not a good idea. This makes the tower important to hold at this stage of the game.
Players on 4 base:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sr27T.jpg) Now players have pretty much the same setup and are defending the same amount of fronts and attack paths. Tower is still important, especially to a zerg player in ZvX when X doesn't have their fourth and zerg does.
Players on 5 base:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cQTAH.jpg) Both players take the other nat as their fifth, and get that main as a "free" 6th. Both players defend same amount of fronts. Tower becomes less important, but still helpful.
I'm honestly still learning ropes when it comes to 4 player rotational maps, and by no means am I discrediting your arguments. However, I'm wondering if they still apply when players expand as shown above, or if other issues arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QP3P2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ffU0R.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FwJpS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EZ2Zz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l1ERU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HG2ab.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/13qrp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4pCdY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JWL37.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AuY3x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rrPLu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VewYx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kfFSD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2YCvl.jpg)
