|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P8VyM.jpg)
TPW Doomsday
by Ragoo
Version 1.2 uploaded on NA & EU
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/V1cM3.jpg)
Overview
Size: 124 x 144
Starting positions: 2
Bases: 8 full bases, 4 half bases (with rich gas)
Towers: 0
Analyzer pictures:
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer] +
Hey beloved mapmaking community!
After quite some time of inactivity – at least regarding actually making maps – here is my new map Doomsday.
I used many things that I have been theorycrafting a lot in the past months and that I decided I would like to see in more maps:
- half base third to prevent the 3 base cap scenario where players just take 3 bases and have enough economy for 200/200 and everything without the need to expand further (similar logic to Barrin's 6m1g but less extreme obviously)
- bigger focus on positional play and defender's advantage through terrain; so because in SC2 the highground advantage is ridiculously bad past early game (blizzard, please do sth), this mainly comes down to a good distribution of open areas and chokes, making it hard to brute force your way into the enemy more often
- low amount if Circle Syndrome; while I don't see this problem in TPW/ESV maps anymore, many teamless mapmakers and Koreans oftentimes ignore this problem completely; while this CS doesn't need to be avoided 100% I can safely say that this map doesn't have any problems with this
- dead-end base that is quite far away from the actual battlefield and behind a small choke puts some more emphasis on harrassing (by air) than sending your whole deathball to deal with it
- emphasis on map control to control bases; now obviously I don't want to take this to the extreme like Antiga Shipyard where sometimes every base past the third feels like a winner base, but especially in 4p mirrored maps like Metropolis it makes it really turtly if you don't need to control the map at all to take up to 5 bases; in this map the highgrounds are clearly worth fighting for even tho as we know SC2 doesn't have any notable highground advantage and there is definitely good ways around the middle
Other notable features:
+ Show Spoiler [features] + + Show Spoiler [natural choke] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dsEs6.jpg) Natural choke is rather small. Example wall-off with 2 gateways and a Zealot for a tight wall ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h5Ms0.jpg) While the natural is rather easy to air harrass because of the cliff over it, this changes a lot when you take your third and can defend air harrass easily from there since it's right next to the map border. (still you need to watch out for air harrass coming to the main)
Close Ups:
+ Show Spoiler [closeups] +
Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler [changelog] + 1.1 – minor texturing and pathing changes
1.2 – added another base
Any comments, feedback, criticism, compliments and (constructive) insults are welcome!
Also a big shoutout to TPW, Timetwister and especially monitor from ESV for helping with this map!
Ragoo
|
Fourth and Fifth seem quite far out, looks like you'd need to control a lot of space to defend them. PArticularly since the natural fifth seems to be the one next to your opponent's base.
|
If you increase the width of the map you can increase the distance between your 4th (zerg 3rd) and the opponent's natural, which I think is a problem right now. Corner-expansions also need a little rework. Otherwise, I like idea. Good job.
|
I like all of your ideas a lot, except the natural choke. However, i am concerned about the fourth : it seems too close to the opponent and too far from the fourth, and the cliff above doesn't help.
|
Impossible for Zerg/Toss to take a 5th base unless it's an early proxy/hidden base or something... otherwise it's easy for Terran to lift off and head on over to the semi-island.
|
On May 21 2012 04:43 IronManSC wrote:
Impossible for Zerg/Toss to take a 5th base unless it's an early proxy/hidden base or something... otherwise it's easy for Terran to lift off and head on over to the semi-island.
Semi-island actually means the ground path to it is blocked which is not the case 
And I don't understand why it's impossible to take, care to explain?
|
I like this map a lot. It features some of the things I've been thinking about in maps lately, and with good execution.
Every base seems to flow into the next, even if it's a bit difficult to expand. It feels like you can take a base, and then you need to control some space in front of it to really secure it, and then once you have that you get easier access to the nest base. Very well done, overall.
|
theres only 4 and a half bases? even steppes of war had more. i think you need to add another expo or two
|
Finally a map with a red-grey colourstyle. Love it.
No idea how the gameplay would look like but it certainly looks strange.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 21 2012 06:20 EcstatiC wrote:
theres only 4 and a half bases? even steppes of war had more. i think you need to add another expo or two
GOD DANGIT I HATE THESE COMMENTS!!!!
Sorry...
The amount of expos had literally nothing to do with why Steppes of War was bad. The problems originated from the nat-nat distance, the restricting middle, and the wide natural. No map needs more than 5 bases per player if its designed right, because games don't go longer than that most of the time- they don't need to.
That being said, I do think the fourth might be a bit difficult to defend the more I look. I now I suggested it in the first place, but I think you should consider some ways to make it easier to defend.
|
Where are the rocks? You cant have this be a GSL map without the rocks man!
Not good enough, see me after class
On a more serious note, sick map, the natural/3rd setup is really really dangerous, curious how that will play out.
|
On May 21 2012 04:43 IronManSC wrote:
Impossible for Zerg/Toss to take a 5th base unless it's an early proxy/hidden base or something... otherwise it's easy for Terran to lift off and head on over to the semi-island.
I kinda agree with the liftoff. It is not gamebreaking at all in my opinion though.
I don´t see the problem with the hidden bases. No cheese? Why not?
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tYLsR.jpg?1)
Circled in red, I strongly feel the entire area is going to cause a lot of problems. It is one thing if a third base were to be "cut off" and handled by the enemy opponent, but the entire area itself is extremely choked up. Assume for a second that your third got cut off and is being attacked. You can either A) surrender it, or B) Try to save it. If you try to save it (especially as a zerg player), it can be very hard to engage anywhere in the red circle. If I give anything constructive on it, it would be to re-work that area and make it a little more open so Zerg can have a fighting chance.
The other main issue I see is that siege units (whether doing a timed push on the natural or 3rd), can eventually park along the edge of the 3rd and seize the choke into the natural, or at least some of it it looks like.
|
United States10342 Posts
AHHHH circle syndrome!!! 
personally, i dont like the outer bases at top left, bot right. personally, i think you should get rid of it and add in a base in between the current 5th and the main in that low ground area.
|
On May 22 2012 07:39 FlaShFTW wrote:AHHHH circle syndrome!!! personally, i dont like the outer bases at top left, bot right. personally, i think you should get rid of it and add in a base in between the current 5th and the main in that low ground area.
Please read this post I made about Circle Syndrome once. I think it's the easiest explanation to understand what CS and what it isn't, check out the examples.
I can assure you this map has no noteworthy CS.
|
Yeah there really isn't any circle syndrome. And the corner bases are my favorite part of the map- they're 100% what sc2 needs right now imo. Not very vulnerable by ground and the can be defended w/ spores, cannons, etc. to stop drops. What they require is spreading out and controlling areas of the map. Definitely do not remove them.
The fourth could be an issue, as I said- I think either rocks or moving it farther from the opponent is the solution.
|
Maybe reduce the size of the wide ramp leading from the middle-ground by the fourth down into the low ground towards the opponent? If you know what I mean. Or do something creative like replace it with one single- and one double-wide ramp. I agree that it feels a bit too close to the enemy.
|
i dont like the tiny tiles, but wow i really dig the layout, that highround by nat is a little scary though
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l070f.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kyxwo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/siCPP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s5bMa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uN15c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ftFpg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DNwuY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GllqO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Bl8Ji.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mdTS6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cowdx.jpg)
