|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fUDvP.jpg)
Atheneum (1.0)
Made by: OxyGenesis
Published on: -
Map Size: 154x132
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z8T3G.jpg)
Overview:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KMWyC.jpg)
My second map for the MotM: ProAm tournament. Layout-wise, I wanted a double height middle that meant controlling it would give you a centre 4th, slightly akin to Antiga Shipyard. The map is designed to encourage the armies through the middle if they want to get a favourable engagement. It's also designed to split up deathballs by encouraging players to flank and attack from the high ground.
Aesthetics wise I wanted to try a Xel'Naga themed map, and I had to include one of these fancy new bridges. I'm still getting used to doodads so that could definitely do with some work. I experimented with a few texturing techniques, I think I now have RSI.
For those wondering - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/athenaeum
Pictures (Aesthetics):
+ Show Spoiler +
Texture Set:
Ulnar and Zhakul'Das
OxyGenesis
|
Cute texturing of the center. Ulnar is definately underused.
I think this map is quite choked. I would love to see some analyzer pictures.
|
On July 10 2012 23:26 Aunvilgod wrote:
Cute texturing of the center. Ulnar is definately underused.
I think this map is quite choked. I would love to see some analyzer pictures.
I would loooove to do some analyser pictures but alas, I have a mac.
|
You know that cliff merging is possible right? With that you wouldn't get the small ledges around the man maid areas 
|
On July 11 2012 00:15 Penke wrote:You know that cliff merging is possible right? With that you wouldn't get the small ledges around the man maid areas
Yeah, except none of the nice manmade protoss cliffs work very well on a space platform, hence the small ledges. That said, I actually kinda like the aesthetic, and if I put a bit more time in to it could probably make it look quite spiffy. Concentrating on the bigger problems right now though.
|
On July 11 2012 00:24 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:15 Penke wrote:You know that cliff merging is possible right? With that you wouldn't get the small ledges around the man maid areas Yeah, except none of the nice manmade protoss cliffs work very well on a space platform, hence the small ledges. That said, I actually kinda like the aesthetic, and if I put a bit more time in to it could probably make it look quite spiffy. Concentrating on the bigger problems right now though.
I think there are some Xel´Naga doodads that would be quite well- fitting. They are hard to use though. Maybe you could take a look at the map of that Xel´Naga spaceship mission of the single-player. Don´t ask me where to load it though.
I would definately wait until the basic design is finished too.
|
On July 11 2012 00:47 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:24 OxyGenesis wrote:On July 11 2012 00:15 Penke wrote:You know that cliff merging is possible right? With that you wouldn't get the small ledges around the man maid areas Yeah, except none of the nice manmade protoss cliffs work very well on a space platform, hence the small ledges. That said, I actually kinda like the aesthetic, and if I put a bit more time in to it could probably make it look quite spiffy. Concentrating on the bigger problems right now though. I think there are some Xel´Naga doodads that would be quite well- fitting. They are hard to use though. Maybe you could take a look at the map of that Xel´Naga spaceship mission of the single-player. Don´t ask me where to load it though. I would definately wait until the basic design is finished too.
Spoilers! I'm not that fair in the campaign yet 
Yeah at the moment the aesthetics are more protoss than Xel'Naga, I might push it a bit more to the Xel'Naga side of things though. Thanks for the suggestions. The Ulnar tileset is underused but I know why, the weird circle tiles I've used can be kinda tricky to use in combination with the others, and I'm not convinced it works very well on large areas.
|
|
|
Updated! just in time for the ProAm. Fixed a lot of the previous issues with the map. Feedback welcome.
|
United States10318 Posts
THE THIRD!!!!! AIYAHHHHHHHH  too difficult to defend. the distance between the natural and third is too long. imo.
|
I've spotted a much more fundamental problem: the main's resource line is in a terrible spot, it could easily be pummeled by siege tanks with a barracks for spotting. If you stretch the bounds a bit, the main can be pushed towards the boundaries and the mineral line can be put into a good spot. Incidentally, you'll also have room to put a new expansion up against the main, if you're into that sort of thing. It might work, since the expansions in the corners seem a bit close.
|
On July 13 2012 09:53 FlaShFTW wrote:THE THIRD!!!!! AIYAHHHHHHHH too difficult to defend. the distance between the natural and third is too long. imo.
Yeah that is something I had been thinking about, I just didn't want to move the 3rd too close to the natural so as you could siege from it. Would closing the choke and putting a backdoor with destructible rocks between the natural and 3rd help?
On July 13 2012 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
I've spotted a much more fundamental problem: the main's resource line is in a terrible spot, it could easily be pummeled by siege tanks with a barracks for spotting. If you stretch the bounds a bit, the main can be pushed towards the boundaries and the mineral line can be put into a good spot. Incidentally, you'll also have room to put a new expansion up against the main, if you're into that sort of thing. It might work, since the expansions in the corners seem a bit close.
Aha I had actually meant for that to be a semi-interesting feature of the map but you may well be right there. Damn Terrans. I think they are some great ideas, that also frees me up to do something more interesting with the corner expansion. The mains have always felt a bit cramped too.
|
I won't make the changes yet as it might be picked up for the contest but here are my preliminary plans for the next version.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LHWJ8.jpg)
Sorry for the rushed photoshopping. Moved the ramp to the 3rd closer to the natural. Added a backdoor passage between the nat and 3rd which is covered by destructible rocks. Added a 6m1g expansion as an optional 3rd which I think helps the flow of the map a lot too. Thoughts?
|
On July 13 2012 09:53 FlaShFTW wrote:THE THIRD!!!!! AIYAHHHHHHHH too difficult to defend. the distance between the natural and third is too long. imo.
It doesnt ALWAYS have to be easy to take or defend a third, no need to force every single game into a 45 min macro fest. I like the idea of keeping a few smaller maps in the mix to make things interesting. This looks like a decent one of those to me, I really like the aesthetics here as well!
|
I don't know, I think the third would be defensible where it is if it were less open. The proposed changes should help, but I would favor redesigning the entire third tbh. Trying to reinforce by a passage that exits behind the mineral line? Come on man. I would just push the third closer to the natural and then closing off the area in front of the third dramatically, perhaps by grossly enlarging the little highground area.
I like the idea of the high ground progressing upwards as you get to the center. I don't think the half bases in the center will be able to be taken, though. I think it would be better if you took out those bases and made the other half bases you just added into full expansions, but that's not really something you need to do. I also feel the center ramps should be enlarged. Right now there's a huge area on either side of the central path that's really risky to move around in because you can get flanked while there and have no avenue for retreating. Either enlarging the center ramps or offsetting them would help you escape from being flanked in the center.
|
On July 14 2012 03:39 Mullet_Ben wrote:
I don't know, I think the third would be defensible where it is if it were less open. The proposed changes should help, but I would favor redesigning the entire third tbh. Trying to reinforce by a passage that exits behind the mineral line? Come on man. I would just push the third closer to the natural and then closing off the area in front of the third dramatically, perhaps by grossly enlarging the little highground area.
I like the idea of the high ground progressing upwards as you get to the center. I don't think the half bases in the center will be able to be taken, though. I think it would be better if you took out those bases and made the other half bases you just added into full expansions, but that's not really something you need to do. I also feel the center ramps should be enlarged. Right now there's a huge area on either side of the central path that's really risky to move around in because you can get flanked while there and have no avenue for retreating. Either enlarging the center ramps or offsetting them would help you escape from being flanked in the center.
Thanks very much for the suggestions. I'm reluctant to make all of those changes as I feel it would make the map somewhat generic. The backdoor to the 3rd was just an idea that I thought might be interesting but maybe it's a dumb idea. The suggestion to enlarge the high ground area next to the 3rd is a good one, I think I will do that whilst rejigging things a bit to make the 3rd flow better. I'm not going to remove the centre half bases as I think they are key to the map but I might move them a little closer to the 3rd to make them more inviting. I'm not sure I entirely understand your comments about the middle, especially about having to retreat path, but I will look at the centre and see if there is anything I can do with it.
|
hey, nice map. The 4th looks like itll be difficult though.
Also the main to nat dist is too long i think? Comsider moving the main mineral line towards the nat.
|
really cool texturing. although it looks like the XNT isn't in the center of the doodead circle? I could just be a moron though
|
@kim thanks for the comments man. Will definitely bare that in mind with the next update.
On July 14 2012 23:55 ChaosRefined wrote:
really cool texturing. although it looks like the XNT isn't in the center of the doodead circle? I could just be a moron though
The Xel'Naga is actually in the middle but the circle is hovering in mid air. I thought it might be a nice aesthetic but I've not really tested it in a game setting.
|
The third is deffinately able to be held, but after the third there isn't really much choice
|
great map, I love it!
the theme you managed to create with that unique use of decals makes it so pleasing to look at.
|
1.1 Balance Update
It wasn't picked for the ProAm but I'm going to continue working on it. Made some changes and overall I'm much more happy with it now. All critique welcome!
I haven't yet updated the aesthetics so there are various visual bugs and things that will be fixed.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dumyu.jpg)
ArcticRaven was kind enough to make some analyser images of it. They are of an old version (I have since closed off the area around the main to prevent siege tank pushes).
http://imgur.com/z4Col,76g3E,fQn47
|
Good changes. If you'll forgive my crappy MSPaint, here's what I mean by retreat paths, and a similar map for comparison:
Cloud Kingdom
Atheneum
I could just be paranoid, and I can't really be sure about the specifics in terms of the relative size of each map, but it would seem to me that the center path for cloud kingdom is wider, and the ramps are closer together, meaning you have greater opportunity to retreat if you are caught out of position. Widening the ramps, like you already did, should help considerably, and maybe now it isn't even a problem at all. I'm just worried that people will decide not to take that path at all for fear they will be flanked and trapped.
Anyway, the update is good, nothing but improvements. I like the half bases a bit better where they are now. Third still looks a little open to me, but it's probably workable how it is right now.
|
On July 19 2012 02:54 Mullet_Ben wrote:Good changes. If you'll forgive my crappy MSPaint, here's what I mean by retreat paths, and a similar map for comparison: Cloud KingdomAtheneumI could just be paranoid, and I can't really be sure about the specifics in terms of the relative size of each map, but it would seem to me that the center path for cloud kingdom is wider, and the ramps are closer together, meaning you have greater opportunity to retreat if you are caught out of position. Widening the ramps, like you already did, should help considerably, and maybe now it isn't even a problem at all. I'm just worried that people will decide not to take that path at all for fear they will be flanked and trapped. Anyway, the update is good, nothing but improvements. I like the half bases a bit better where they are now. Third still looks a little open to me, but it's probably workable how it is right now.
thanks for explaining that. You could well be right there, I don't see it as too much of a problem though. I see it as a risky path that you can use to flank things with yourself and also as a shortcut to some of the other bases. If you want to take a slower, safer route you can very easily do that by moving on to the lower ground. This is a key concept of the map, holding that middle ground is very important, but being too static with your army won't end well.
If it turns out that it doesn't play out quite like that then the cardinal ramp could be rotated 45º to be in line with the others. Thanks for all your help Ben.
|
The Xel'Naga is actually in the middle but the circle is hovering in mid air. I thought it might be a nice aesthetic but I've not really tested it in a game setting.
OH okay, that's sweet then! What did you use for the circle btw?
|
On July 27 2012 09:26 ChaosRefined wrote:Show nested quote +
The Xel'Naga is actually in the middle but the circle is hovering in mid air. I thought it might be a nice aesthetic but I've not really tested it in a game setting.
OH okay, that's sweet then! What did you use for the circle btw?
I've actually removed it because it was in the campaign dependencies and I've thought of a better idea for the middle now. But if you want to use it it's called the protoss summoning circle or something like that, in the campaign dependancies. It's animated too.
|
United States10318 Posts
On July 13 2012 21:20 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 09:53 FlaShFTW wrote:THE THIRD!!!!! AIYAHHHHHHHH too difficult to defend. the distance between the natural and third is too long. imo. It doesnt ALWAYS have to be easy to take or defend a third, no need to force every single game into a 45 min macro fest. I like the idea of keeping a few smaller maps in the mix to make things interesting. This looks like a decent one of those to me, I really like the aesthetics here as well!
3 base play does not transition into 45 minute macrofest. ive said this before, the reason why I focus primarily on the main-nat-third is because i want to give players options. they can play 3 base style, or try to continue getting bases, or they can commit to some 2 base play. w.e. they want. i dont like 45 minute macrofests, but i do prefer decent macro games with good harasses in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5QkHA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NoXoR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3iBOA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v0mos.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aadZl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pXRIK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ySJt3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5lNA9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AmWGQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D9gZU.jpg)
