[M] TPW Crystarium - Page 2

On April 20 2012 13:11 EatThePath wrote:


I was trying to say it's okay for maps to open up after the 3rd base. Maps so far have not been good enough to achieve this, except maybe CK, which also chooses to have a significantly contestable 3base stage. (This is probably how most maps should be.) I also disagree that the 3rd base is that easy on this map. Sorry I wasn't clear.

On April 20 2012 16:27 lefix wrote:
Timetwister, while I agree with what you are saying in theory, I have to disagree about this map. I actually find that this map encourages positional play execellently. There are no bases where the defending army can move between in a straight, flat line. You always have to move up and down, through chokes or around corners. The distance a player needs to stretch out to as he expands is pretty much spot on and evenly spaced from first to last base. Also, every base is different and creates new gameplay scenarios:, the defensive third in the back, the offensive third on a highground with multiple openings, the "secret hallway" base on the side, the base with the highground vulnerability. I like that alot. Also you rarely see towers placed so well. They're slightly off the main attack path, both towers are valueable to me as a player and serve different purposes and only reveal what they are supposed to reveal.
Personally, this map makes me very, very jealous. :D

On April 20 2012 22:15 Archvil3 wrote:
@Timetwister

I get your point and understand where you are comming from. I do think you overlook a few things that strongly encourages the defender to defend from the highground rather then in between nat and third.

First of all is vision. Unlike similair layouts the attacker is capable of blacking out vision of the highground by taking out air units making scans the only option for vision. This makes it extremely hard to do reactionary defense between the bases when you will know exactly where you are being attacked from untill the oponent is right in your face.

The second is vulnerable cliff to the mainbase. From the highground the attack can ferry in units through medivacs or warp in from a pylon with a spotter. This is a very small commitment from the attacker that can easily can get out and attack the from another position while your army or at least a part of it is in a bad spot. This is certaintly more technical then the "dance" between bases.

Both the lack of vision and the vulnerability to the main can be negated by position your army on the highground.

Idealy and my vision with the map is to encourage the defender to play from the highground and be at a disadvantage if defending from between the nat and third.

However you may have convinsed me that I did not do a good enough of a job to make the highground the ideal position so I have made a few changes:

+ Show Spoiler +

I have placed LoS blockers outside the third to put the defender further in darkness if he choses to give up highground vision. The ramps to the center of the map have been decreased in size from 4x to 3x and have a rock on it to strenghten the position in the early to midgame.

I dont want to change my aproach to the third, it stays as it is but I will make neccesary changes to make the highground the best position to defend from.

On April 21 2012 01:24 Timetwister22 wrote:


Beyond 3 bases, yes, I entirely agree with you. If the game makes it past 3 bases, the game becomes quite exciting and map awareness becomes very important. I'm talking about the time period where you are only on three bases.



Where the high ground gives you vision, I'd much rather know that my opponent is either going to come down a single ramp that's fairly choked, or at my third. When holding the high ground, you have to have map awareness to know which direction they're coming from. That's a good thing, however if holding the low ground allows you to take an earlier and safer third that can be held without map awareness, what's stopping me from doing that? Thus, I think the map encourages players to hold the low ground over the high ground, with the exception of maybe zerg who I don't think won't have any trouble holding the more open high ground.

Also, I'd like to bring up the point saying that what protoss army on 3 bases doesn't have an observer? And what terran army on 3 bases doesn't have medivacs or vikings? Not having vision up the ramp really isn't that big of a deal, as it's so easy to gain such vision. Thus, with the only disadvantage from being on the low ground naturally taken care of by common unit compositions, there's no reason to have map awareness and work extra hard to position yourself on the high ground. The only time I could see where the high ground matters is tanks in zvt. However, as I mentioned above zerg should be holding the high ground since it's more open and easier to flank from.

As far as your changes go, they're alright. However, LOS blockers at the third don't stop players from making a wall with canons/spines in pvz, bunkers/cannons in tvp/ or spines/bunkers and a wall in zvt. In fact, one could argue that the LOS blockers even hurt map awareness for zerg since it makes spreading creep more difficult. However, zerg should have a fourth by the time their opponent is on 3 base, excluding zvz ofc, so that's not really that big of a deal.

As far as the ramp and rock change,there are a few problems I see with it. If you make the high ground choked enough for a protoss and terran to hold that high ground spot early game, what's to say they won't just take the high ground third? Where this in itself isn't an issue, something like a tvz planetary fortress would be quite powerful, and also allows terran to take the low ground third as their fourth for a fairly easy four bases. Same could be said about protoss. In other words, choking up the high ground would be like choking up the forward third on Daybreak LE. Such just allows protoss and terran to take early map control,thus allowing them to take a much earlier and greedier fourth. Such contributes to even more to deatthball vs deathball game play. Simply put, as long as you have that low ground third as an option, choking up that high ground third is just a bad idea. Yet, without it being chokey, players aren't encouraged to position themselves on the high ground to defend their low ground third. It's a lose-lose situation.

This is why in my proposal I got rid of the low ground third and pushed back the high ground third. Such would make the high ground undeniably the best place to position your army, while making it defensible for all three races. The other things I did in my proposal, such as alter chokes and adding paths and ramps, was to further encourage map awareness and to make the high ground third more defensible with such map awareness. Of course, the extent of my change might be too drastic, so smaller changes with the same idea in mind could go a long way for this map.

Nevertheless, I will state that theory crafting can only go so far. Thus, I would be really curious to see some replays on the map, preferably not of mirror matches with the exception of tvt, as pvp and zvz don't usually make it to 3 base. I myself will probably be trying out the map later tonight, however my diamond NA skills might not be up to par when it comes to seeing how the map is played at a higher level. I would advise trying to find players of at least masters to get an idea of how the map plays.

On April 21 2012 21:38 Archvil3 wrote:


The main-nat-third setup is not quite different from other "3 base/2 paths" maps which now that I look it up is quite common. What I am trying to get to though is that it is in fact harder to defend your 3 bases compared to similair maps and that it is more beneficial to move out, again compared to other maps.

You dont like the style so I am guessing that you dont like Daybreak as well? My goal with this map was to imitate the style of these maps but at same time make position and moving out more beneficial.

I like how the map is now and I am not going to make any drastic changes. Thank you for your feedback though, you definetly have good points and I will take these into consideration when I design new layouts.

On April 20 2012 07:10 TheFish7 wrote:
Its kind of like a 2 spawn Shakuras Plateau, except with a more interesting middle, and better harassment options for zerg at the 4th base!
Can ground units sneak past the watchtowers if they go single file through the center?

On April 20 2012 14:02 WniO wrote:
wonderful aesthetics. simple, but done with great care.

On April 20 2012 20:50 FlaShFTW wrote:
the map looks so beautiful. did cloud kingdom inspire you? I can see the up-down-up middles becoming more popular. well done.

On April 21 2012 01:30 Praetorial wrote:
Needs more crystals for map called Crystarium.

On April 22 2012 02:19 Timetwister22 wrote:
Indeed, I am not a fan of this style, so yes I'm not the biggest fan of daybreak. I just saw so much potential in this map to be something like the next Cloud Kingdom, if only the nat-third set-up promoted map awareness. However, maybe with this feedback you'll come up with something even better. Cheers!