EPT[M] TPW Crystarium - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Snoman
Canada191 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
neozxa
Indonesia545 Posts
| ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
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. I entirely disagree that it's ok for maps to open up after 3 bases. Fast 3 base cap = fast 200/200 deathballs slamming into one another without any consideration of positioning. *yawn* Might I add that CK is nothing like that, at all. As of now, many look down on maps that promote such deathball bowling. Where simply making the 3rd more open by adding more chokes to defend doesn't prevent maxed armies from clashing, it makes the player work to achieve that 3 base cap and also makes room for earlier aggression. Once on that 3 base cap there should still be positioning conflicts when engaging with your maxed or near maxed army. If both players manage to get a 200/200 army off 3 base, and had to work to do so, fine. The least we can do as mappers is to make those deathball clashes more interesting with positioning conflicts. On this map currently, or any other map where you only have two entrances into the third and natural area, you simply don't have to work to achieve that 3 base cap. You just wall one choke and stick your army in the other, and there's no need to have map awareness. Thus, easy three base. Not only that, but there is no room on the map for positional conflicts since, once again, there are only two chokes to defend. This doesn't break maps into a state of total imbalance, or make them imbalanced at all. It just makes them boring. As mapmakers, we should do our best to push ourselves as far away from boring as possible. | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
Personally, this map makes me very, very jealous. :D | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10015 Posts
| ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
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 + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yOchh.jpg) 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. | ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
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 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. 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. 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. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
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. 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! | ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
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? Yep, and they will automaticly do so if you move from base to the other as the shortest path is between the towers. On April 20 2012 14:02 WniO wrote: wonderful aesthetics. simple, but done with great care. great care yes. I had a lot of problems working with these textures and if they were done slightly wrong they looked terrible so I spent way too much time making it look just right  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. I werent really aiming to imitate CK in any way. In the first versions of the map the S-shaped valley was more straight but as the map developed it become more of an S-shape. My main inspiration for this map was Daybreak. On April 21 2012 01:30 Praetorial wrote: Needs more crystals for map called Crystarium. Initially the map had more crystals but liked the more simple design better. Still kept the name though. 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! I agree that we should be moving a bit away from the very heavy macro maps and into a better mix of macro, agression and positioning. I still feel there is room for these maps though, especially if they are done well. The Grid is similair in terms of macro so I think Im done with this style for now, time to look into something else. | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
Absolute pass on this map, hopefully your next effort will have a little more originality as you seem very competent in execution. | ||
|
Shadow_Dog
Canada427 Posts
| ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
| ||
