|
Published on NA EU KR SEA
By SUPEROUMAN
V 1.0
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +OUTDATED: MAP ANALYZER DOESN'T WORK ON 1.5 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MYtAU.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zX6iv.jpg)
Playable: 142x142
Tileset
+ Show Spoiler +Mar Sara Panels
Mar Sara Sand
Mar Sara Dirt
Mar Sara Rocky
Mar Sara Dirt Cracked
Mar Sara Concrete
Braxis Alpha Plates
Braxis Alpha Metal Detail
Mar Sara Organic Cliffs
Mar Sara Manmade Cliffs
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +OUTDATED ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D3EqR.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mAU5v.jpg)
Change Log
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The map looks really interesting, i have a couple of points id like to address:
i presume there are line of sight blockers to the mains right? that way a 4gate would be easier to hold (i still think lots of people would 4gate, might shift so that toss has to scout more in early game).
Secondly, is the whole air space available around the edges of the map? because if yes, then mutalisks would really be a pain to deal with for protoss (for terran too, but imo their defense is better than toss with ultra high muta numbers) since splitting up your army is impossible if there are more than 2-3 locations to cover.
I like how taking a third is a mixture of easy but very interesting with the small ramp leading to the third and the large space between your main and third, i guess though that for terran it should be relatively well defended with siege tanks, for protoss it should be manageable aswell. What i like in this map is that taking a fourth is not as horrendously difficult as for example on Antiga Shipyard. This all depends on air space though, i still think mutas would be really really strong, however the ling runby would be a lot harder to execute.
The main is really really large, just out of curiosity is there a reason for that? i think that could be easily abused for nydus/drops/proxies which can make the game really difficult, on the other side it gets really interesting aswell, so no criticisms there, just sayin :D
Overall i like the innovation in your mapmaking! i just have these 2 points (high master toss here, so i know im not perfect but i hope my discussion/map analysis is worth something :D )
Big block of text i know, but i like your creative thinking! Keep up the good work 
|
Looks Interesting.
I'd say increase the size of the ramp to the fourth, looks fairly easy to wall it off/defend and leave only 1 choke to cover 3 bases.
Also the one cardinal ramp at the top base looks bigger then the rest.
|
On July 31 2012 08:07 Dragonadern wrote:
The main is really really large, just out of curiosity is there a reason for that? i think that could be easily abused for nydus/drops/proxies which can make the game really difficult, on the other side it gets really interesting aswell, so no criticisms there, just sayin :D
From playing on it I think the main is actually not that big at all, but the analyzer counts the natural area as main as well?!
|
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
|
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever.
|
|
|
The bottom left main is has alot of more buildable space behind mineral line. This makes definding vs air better as it gives much more space to build turrets. Also the distance from middle of mineral line, to safe air zone seems to be by far the longest on the bottom left base meaning that its way easier to catch air units running away from there with ground to air units before enemy gets to safe zone.
Then again, it seems that the inbase natural is the furthest away from the bottom left main, and this is a disadvantage for obious reasons.
Are these features intentional and desinged to balance each other out, or are they both unintentional?
|
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
Do you realize this is a remake of a BW map of the same general design?
Anyway, just think of the natural as part of your main -- a free base in an extra big main base.
|
On July 31 2012 09:32 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. Do you realize this is a remake of a BW map of the same general design? Anyway, just think of the natural as part of your main -- a free base in an extra big main base.
Yeah, but BW can get away with inverted main ramps but SC2 can't. This isn't quite that though, so I'm curious as to how this plays out.
|
On July 31 2012 09:47 thenexusp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 09:32 EatThePath wrote:On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. Do you realize this is a remake of a BW map of the same general design? Anyway, just think of the natural as part of your main -- a free base in an extra big main base. Yeah, but BW can get away with inverted main ramps but SC2 can't. This isn't quite that though, so I'm curious as to how this plays out.
The concept with the AE pack was not to make the most balanced maps ever, but to explore creativity and push limits that don't get pushed. No one knows how that highground nat will work, who knows it could be like the most balanced thing ever, but we won't know if we don't try.
|
I thought this was the most interesting of the BW remakes. Good shyte.
|
Hooray! It's what I had in mind for a long time about 3 player maps, How in BW it was not completely symmetrical, yet it worked. So what not make it same for sc2!
I think you did a really good job on it, hopefully we can see more 3 player maps like this, using all three edges.
One suggestion: Extend the map bound on the bottom of the map, so that each side of the bases have equal air space?
I like how you didnt use cliffs when possible, since it's a 3 player map!
|
The analyzer shows some pathable terrain on the right border. It's too small to matter, but it would be best if it was fixed. Not sure what to make of the low ground main style coming from ESV, I'll have to watch some games on it.
|
Yeahy! Finally a Pro mapper is playing with some of my "toys"! Superouman, you are my new hero! LOS blockers into the main?! Alternate, rampless main chokes (that are still standard wallable)!? I guess it was only a matter of time, really... It's too bad you didn't pick one of my maps for the ProAm -- we would have gone places, my friend!
@ Ragoo -- yes, the analyzer will sometimes count portions outside of the "main" as part of the area of the main. I am unsure as to what makes this the case, but it has happened to me on main of my maps.
|
|
|
Superouman. You are f*cking awesome.
|
On July 31 2012 12:16 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
@ Ragoo -- yes, the analyzer will sometimes count portions outside of the "main" as part of the area of the main. I am unsure as to what makes this the case, but it has happened to me on main of my maps.
The way the analyzer calculates the size of the main base A is like this:
1. Find a tiny choke that is on every path from starting position A to other starting positions. "Tiny" is defined in the analyzer config files as "main-choke-threshold" or something similar.
2. Pretend that choke is blocked: how many playable cells are in the island with position A?
Basically the analyzer considers anything behind a tiny, wallable choke as "the main base." I thought that was pretty reasonable because it gives you an idea of how much space a player who walls in has to work with.
So on this map all that space in the high ground natural is counted as part of the main.
Anywho, I want to some high level replays on this map.
|
On July 31 2012 09:03 Sea_Food wrote:
The bottom left main is has alot of more buildable space behind mineral line. This makes definding vs air better as it gives much more space to build turrets. Also the distance from middle of mineral line, to safe air zone seems to be by far the longest on the bottom left base meaning that its way easier to catch air units running away from there with ground to air units before enemy gets to safe zone.
Yes it seems to me that the bottom left base could be the only one where you can prevent air from going in your base if you just have ground-to-air defense at the natural/third. If that's the case that would be quite imba imo.
|
On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever. The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed.
Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map.
|
On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever. The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map.
Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large.
|
On August 02 2012 13:12 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever. The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map. Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large.
Actually you can easily scout any probe coming in by the nexus because that area is very small. It won't be hard to spot a probe coming in and stop it if you're playing well and keeping your eyes open. I'd be glad to test on NA if you guys are so inclined, add me "monitor", 450.
|
On August 02 2012 13:26 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 13:12 Chargelot wrote:On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever. The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map. Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large. Actually you can easily scout any probe coming in by the nexus because that area is very small. It won't be hard to spot a probe coming in and stop it if you're playing well and keeping your eyes open. I'd be glad to test on NA if you guys are so inclined, add me "monitor", 450.
 no NA account else I would. But the same argument could be made for any main with a standard ramp. The entrance is small, you should be able to see it coming. So why do we have standardized main sizes?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. And I think it's an interesting concept. But it needs to be put up against these types of questions.
|
Too many rocks, just remove them and add in black tar lakes- Like the BW mar-sara tile set, (around the outside of map.)
|
On August 02 2012 15:08 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 13:26 monitor wrote:On August 02 2012 13:12 Chargelot wrote:On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever. The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map. Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large. Actually you can easily scout any probe coming in by the nexus because that area is very small. It won't be hard to spot a probe coming in and stop it if you're playing well and keeping your eyes open. I'd be glad to test on NA if you guys are so inclined, add me "monitor", 450. no NA account else I would. But the same argument could be made for any main with a standard ramp. The entrance is small, you should be able to see it coming. So why do we have standardized main sizes? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. And I think it's an interesting concept. But it needs to be put up against these types of questions.
What I'm saying is that I don't think it is the same as other maps. On a map like Daybreak or Shakuras, you should never really be walling off in PvP. So the ramp is out of vision until you get your second pylon up at 16 or 17. A probe coming in has to be scouted with either a forward gateway placement, your own probe scout, or luck. Colosseum a probe can be scouted when it walks in afaik.
[edit] Also I do agree that we should be questioning these things, I'm just responding because we did think about it ^^
|
On August 02 2012 15:23 WniO wrote:
Too many rocks, just remove them and add in black tar lakes- Like the BW mar-sara tile set, (around the outside of map.)
Ah good idea, i didn't think about it. thx
but water still takes a shitload of fps rate, not sure if it's better than all the rock doodads
|
Update:
- Enlarged natural ramp
- Removed some highground from the third expand near the main choke
- Enlarged 3rd ramp to 4th expand
- Added tower in the middle
- Added some tar
|
I absolutely love 3 player 1 on 1 maps, and would love to see alot more of these
|
On September 18 2012 22:03 Superouman wrote:
Update:
-- Added some tar
WOAH, I dunno if I can handle that.
|
NO. why do mapmakers keep trying this. NONONONONONO.
mains on the same level as the ground outside DOES NOT WORK. pvp is completely fucked, and it doesnt help zvz at all. secondly the high ground natural is a cannon haven, you know how easy it is to get 3 pylons up at teh bottom of a ramp? well it doesnt hurt when youre doing it from the top of a ramp. i get that its an anniversary map, but atm its completely unplayable as an SC2 map.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On September 19 2012 03:16 EcstatiC wrote:
NO. why do mapmakers keep trying this. NONONONONONO.
mains on the same level as the ground outside DOES NOT WORK. pvp is completely fucked, and it doesnt help zvz at all. secondly the high ground natural is a cannon haven, you know how easy it is to get 3 pylons up at teh bottom of a ramp? well it doesnt hurt when youre doing it from the top of a ramp. i get that its an anniversary map, but atm its completely unplayable as an SC2 map.
No it isn't.
If you place a pylon outside of the main choke it can be sniped from the highground correct?
It's not broken for PvP at all, stop complaining for no reason.
|
On September 19 2012 03:16 EcstatiC wrote:
NO. why do mapmakers keep trying this. NONONONONONO.
mains on the same level as the ground outside DOES NOT WORK. pvp is completely fucked, and it doesnt help zvz at all. secondly the high ground natural is a cannon haven, you know how easy it is to get 3 pylons up at teh bottom of a ramp? well it doesnt hurt when youre doing it from the top of a ramp. i get that its an anniversary map, but atm its completely unplayable as an SC2 map.
The choke at the entrance works pretty much the same as a ramp - it's blocked with a forcefield, and having stuff on the highground allows you to defend - you just need to scout for cheese. Nothing all that different, really.
|
I think it works ok. Only thing is, for a map using only 2 of the 3 height levels, you might as well utilize the 3rd level by raising the main and naturals + putting a ramp at the main instead of LOS blockers in order to avoid this controversy altogether.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On September 19 2012 07:24 Fatam wrote:
I think it works ok. Only thing is, for a map using only 2 of the 3 height levels, you might as well utilize the 3rd level by raising the main and naturals + putting a ramp at the main instead of LOS blockers in order to avoid this controversy altogether.
That then removes the entire point of what ESV are trying to do.
ESV want to make maps that push the boundries of mapmaking in SC2. We don't know if this works or not as no other map has ever really tried it (not counting Tal'darim as it's very different here). If nobody tries stuff like this we'll never know if it works and all maps will slowly become the same. I made a thread about this problem in General a week or so ago.
|
On September 19 2012 07:44 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:24 Fatam wrote:
I think it works ok. Only thing is, for a map using only 2 of the 3 height levels, you might as well utilize the 3rd level by raising the main and naturals + putting a ramp at the main instead of LOS blockers in order to avoid this controversy altogether. That then removes the entire point of what ESV are trying to do. ESV want to make maps that push the boundries of mapmaking in SC2. We don't know if this works or not as no other map has ever really tried it (not counting Tal'darim as it's very different here). If nobody tries stuff like this we'll never know if it works and all maps will slowly become the same. I made a thread about this problem in General a week or so ago.
Fatam is way past that.
He's saying that it doesn't add anything when you could just have a level 1 main and a level 2 natural, which preserves the "upper natural" configuration and does away with bending over backwards to have a viable unorthodox main choke. However, the flat choke is perfectly fine here and doesn't require anything special since the natural provides high ground anyway. (Btw this feature was showcased several maps long before now.) It's true that it doesn't really add anything (although it is a little different and has novelty value) but it also doesn't hurt anything so why "fix" it?
I played several PvPs on this map (before the update) and it was totally fine. We actually discovered that the narrow ramp to the natural might be problematic because you can easily abuse FF for attacks with proxy pylons and vision, or warp prism.
|
Thanks Path, yeah that is what I was trying to say (perhaps I'm not the most eloquent or understandable person here :-P I'll try to be more clear in the future). It would be the exact same effect with a L3 nat, L2 main, and rest of the map L1. There would literally be no difference in the map at all, other than a super slight aesthetic difference.
But I'm not the enemy here - I agree that it works fine the way it is :-) + Show Spoiler +(I just think if you can avoid controversy without fundamentally changing how your map works, there's no reason not to do it. i.e. you should only include a "different' feature in a map if it actually affects how the game will be played, not -just- because it is different)
|
Hehe sure. ^^
In this case the map is a remake which I think has some weight in the decision, otherwise it's a case of why instead why not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag7va.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ntow7.jpg)
