| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
by Fatam version 2.2 [NA, EU] (Thanks Callynn for EU) Overviews: Angled: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HYAZ4.jpg) Overhead w/ XNT ranges: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4HZz7.jpg) Statistics: + Show Spoiler + Playable area: 148x124 Mains: 34 CCs Rush distance - nat-to-nat: 118 # of bases: 12 8m2g # of rocks: 2 # of watchtowers: 2 Aesthetics: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FgH3f.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EziKy.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9bQxO.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CGJzr.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/34kKJ.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3nKSU.jpg) | ||
|
Giga
United Kingdom114 Posts
| ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
I noticed in your screenshots that you got a cliff terrain display glitch. Try pressing ctrl+t  | ||
|
TibblesEvilCat
United Kingdom766 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I love the aesthetics though, awesome design. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Here's a few different possibilities, let me know what you guys think. option 1 (no middle rocks whatsoever) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0iOAM.jpg) option 2 (partially blocked ramps on 2 of the ramps) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DQSUC.jpg) option 3 (fully blocked ramps on 2 of the ramps) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gcUxg.jpg) option 4 (no rocks in mid, replace rocks above path to third with longer rocks which block that whole ramp) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r5yvr.jpg) I'm personally leaning towards 1 or 2, but I can see some merit in 3 and 4 also. | ||
|
Insomni7
667 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
Veloh15
United States161 Posts
| ||
|
Bswhunter
Australia954 Posts
Thats a cool feeling. Hope this map does well just cuz of that feeling | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
With the change I don't think it will feel "browdery" anymore with the destructible rocks. For all intents and purposes there are only 2 rocks on the map now. @ bsw thanks! I wonder what about it made you feel that way. Cool nonetheless. @ the 5 and 11 oclock bases, I --think-- it's best to keep them that way instead of adding any additional entrances. I feel like with the map not being that big (yet you are stretched vertically a decent amount), if you add a ramp on the other side of those bases then it will just be too difficult to defend all your bases and it will be too base tradey of a map. But if other people want to weigh in on that, feel free. | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
Although I'd like to test how it works out, I can't because I play on [EU] =( | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
@ the rocks being a bit closer to the nat ramp, I did that because on Ohana they are --both-- ramps, so I figured the defender should have a bit more of an advantage here since the attacker doesn't have to come up a ramp. WHether or not I made the right decision with that.. who knows :-P | ||
|
Jebediah
Germany106 Posts
Adding 1 FF size ramps on the 5 and 11 o'clock bases would be nice. If they are in an awkward spot for the attacker, only relatively small amounts of units should get in there. At least, that's what I believe :D The rocks in the main are a little distracting for me, I can't tell if they create little nooks which are pathable. Alltogether, I really want to test this map :> Hope it's up on EU soon(ish). | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I went ahead and added 1 FF ramps to the 4ths (it's that way in the one I sent as well). | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
Still not a fan of the aesthetics though ^^ | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
It looks like you should raise the main and natural, along with those 2 bases on the side with platforms. Then just have everything else a flat open area with the middle ground highered too. Just too many choke points / Vision problems for it to work imo | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
You can find and test the map by going to costum game and search for its exact name there. If there are people who prefer the map on the arcade, please let me know how to publish something in the arcade  Enjoy. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I think opening things up any more is dangerous because it already has a lot of attack paths. A map can have a lot of attack paths OR be really open, not both. It's too zerg-friendly otherwise (that's my opinion, anyway). I think the map overview is a bit deceiving in this regard as well. Some of the ramps and pathways look smaller than they actually are because of how the texturing is done. + Show Spoiler + I keep a few maps that are generally accepted as being balanced on file so I don't have to log in to look at them. Good for benchmarks/making sure your map isn't so crazy that people are scared of it (the mistake I made on my first handful of maps). The average ramp size (not counting main ramps) on Ohana is 3. The average ramp size (at least before I added the two new 1FF ramps to the 4ths, which hardly count) on Yog's is 3.16. Obviously Ohana is more open in other ways, but it shows that the map isn't completely chokey. Same as before, if enough people agree that it's chokey I can make some changes. I do think I will reduce the size of the chasms near the 5 / 11 oclock bases since the addition of the 1FF ramps there narrowed that passage slightly, which was an unintended consequence. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
I greatly enjoyed playing on this map. It's expansion placement encourages late game play while its size allows for a lot of neat early game pressure. Good luck polishing the map and be sure to send me updated versions for [EU]. Encourage Drop Play The doodads in the corner of the mains discourage drop play into the main, give a little room there for sneaky drops to increase the map's skillcap and discourage passive play. The natural seems to be vulnerable to drop play already, which is fine. Rocks The purpose of the rocks at the 3 and 9 clock locations (from the natural ramp towards the small canyon then up to the center of the map) is unknown to me. Are they for offensive purposes? Defensive? They seem to be there just for show now and don't really narrow the ramp. The Garage doodad at the fifth is not needed (rock with 600 hp, it isn't even a gold expansion). The fifth is already hard to take and the only reason this map doesn't need to end up in a split manner. Discourage the split map by making the base accessible by removing that 'rock'. Next to that, the garage model is very ugly in this beautiful alien x-mas terrain, it doesn't blend in at all. Defensive Position Going on about the natural ramp into that small canyon. This gives the defender a very good position to protect his natural. The two ramps create a decent choke that seems to be easy to abuse with forcefields and hard to attack. This is slightly compensated by the open third, which offers another attack path. However, even if the rocks are broken down (from the third to the natural) the defender can still shoot from up his main and hit everything that passes. Siege tanks placed at the main ramp will be able to cover the natural and the third to natural attack path in this manner. This overly turtely nature seems a bit overdone, but I don't see it being a problem right now because the map motivates macro play beyond 4 bases anyway. This position feels slightly like Cloud Kingdom, with the third closer to the main while the third ramp is further away. Vision Coverage The XNWTs cover most of the attack paths, but there are still some sneaky routes around them (through the fifth). However, I feel that for the size of your map, a single watch tower in the center would suffice, right now it is too easy to see most of the map while it would demand higher player skill to cover map vision with overlords and observers e.a. Aesthetics The map's art is very well done. There are only two inconsistencies. The garage (as I said before) doesn't fit into the terrain at all (next to not being functional). Secondly, the water surrounding the map makes the map feel warmer than it should be. If it truly is winter, there should be no water (because ice is missing in the editor right now), to add to the cold feeling of this map. The small alien plants with blue orbs on them make this map feel like christmas on the moon. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Those are some really good points. I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said. + Show Spoiler + @ the garage I don't know how to make rocks only 600 hp but I could try to find out (or some wise person could inform me). Although it sounds like you think it should go away completely. Do you think the mechanical doodads on the sides of that base also look bad? @ the xel'naga tower - I can remove the dead marine and his crashed helicopter from the middle and put the XNT there. I was afraid that the XNT would be useless there and not be able to see anything, but it can actually see about 2/3 of the paths to the north and south, which is perfect for detecting large armies going by but having the possibility of a few units to "wall it" and sneak by. So I think that works. @ the rocks at the 3 and 9 oclock. I think I mentioned them somewhere but maybe not. Basically the attacker can kill them if he wants to be able to have the ability to cover the entire width of the nat-to-third passage with a sieged tank on the highground (as the rocks cover the -only- spot that can do that). A bit of an unnecessary flourish, maybe. | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On August 21 2012 19:45 Fatam wrote: @ the garage I don't know how to make rocks only 600 hp but I could try to find out (or some wise person could inform me). Although it sounds like you think it should go away completely. Do you think the mechanical doodads on the sides of that base also look bad? No, these doodads look fine, the garage is just out of place. And yes, I don't think rocks are needed on the fifth base at all. Without that base the map is very split, which may motivate games that become too long and too boring to spectate. The rocks make the base less easy to take. I also believe rocks are at 1500 hp for a good reason, they are there to prevent it to be taken early game (like a too easy to defend gold base or an island for Terran). Making rocks 600 hp at a late game base just seems totally unneccesary. On August 21 2012 19:45 Fatam wrote:@ the xel'naga tower - I can remove the dead marine and his crashed helicopter from the middle and put the XNT there. I was afraid that the XNT would be useless there and not be able to see anything, but it can actually see about 2/3 of the paths to the north and south, which is perfect for detecting large armies going by but having the possibility of a few units to "wall it" and sneak by. So I think that works. Yep, go for that. On August 21 2012 19:45 Fatam wrote:@ the rocks at the 3 and 9 oclock. I think I mentioned them somewhere but maybe not. Basically the attacker can kill them if he wants to be able to have the ability to cover the entire width of the nat-to-third passage with a sieged tank on the highground (as the rocks cover the -only- spot that can do that). A bit of an unnecessary flourish, maybe. The problem is that a sieged up tank at that very spot doesn't really make the attacker's position any better. In fact, because the rocks are tilted slightly towards the middle, a sieged up tank wouldnt be able to hit anything at the natural. Those rocks may as well not be there (or they should be a cool looking doodad). | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I threw a few experimental LOS doodads in, thought it could make for some interesting micro situations. I got the idea when I removed those XNTs but thought that LOS blockers could still be cool in that area. The LOS around the XNT in the middle is also not a full circle - could make for some slightly different stalker vs marine micro battles early on. + Show Spoiler + Normally the stalker gets shut down by the handful of marines if they are at a XNT b/c of the LOS blocker. But here, if the P wants to use some APM he can walk the stalker to the left or right where the LOS doesn't cover the watchtower and try to outrange and pick off marines. The terran will then have to walk to the other side of the LOS to protect the marines or bait the stalker to follow, the stalker might try to go around and continue to outrange them, etc. etc. Thought it could be fun. The LOS blockers to the N and S allow for ambushes and other cool stuff. I might pretty them up a bit as right now they are looking a little too straight. But that can be fixed. Let me know what you guys think. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f5mz6.jpg) | ||
|
Jebediah
Germany106 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On August 22 2012 00:53 Jebediah wrote: I can't find the map on EU, tried the full name and variations of it in both the Starcraft and the Arcade Section. Did you try under 'costum game'? In the search function it displays as the only result for Yog's Winter to me. @ fatam: looks a lot better :3 | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On August 30 2012 05:28 Fatam wrote: So apparently http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361924 is using community maps in their tournaments and this one got chosen for the upcoming one. Woo :-) Nice man. This is way better than the first version you posted. ^^ I still can't let go of the idea of rocks on the NW and SE ramps to the central platform. It makes a long rush distance but it makes the option of opening your own rocks a lot more interesting, kind of like Blistering Sands but not godawful. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I like your idea of rocks there (I think rocks are great, if the SC2 world was my oyster then ladder maps would absolutely have more rocks.. they really can add a lot of strategical depth to the game) but other people generally hate rocks so I'm realizing I can't have very many :-\ The maps are for other people to enjoy so I have to cater. I will enjoy the mapmaking process regardless. | ||
|
Pax
United States175 Posts
On August 30 2012 06:45 Fatam wrote: Yeah I think it has improved. Feedback ftw. I like your idea of rocks there (I think rocks are great, if the SC2 world was my oyster then ladder maps would absolutely have more rocks.. they really can add a lot of strategical depth to the game) but other people generally hate rocks so I'm realizing I can't have very many :-\ The maps are for other people to enjoy so I have to cater. I will enjoy the mapmaking process regardless. I don't think anyone can really complain about path-blocking rocks (so long as they don't make a back door to your main). When the rocks are at expos, though, then people take issue. It's a really lazy way of trying to slow down expos, as you are imposing an arbitrary restriction on how fast power-econ strats can come online, rather than using the terrain to make taking that expo really early riskier, and out-right killing push-while-expanding strats by forcing units to destroy the rocks rather than attack. As for this map, I'm really loving the bleak, nuclear winter look you have going on. The sparseness of doodads is a welcome change from the flying shark infested GSL maps. Balance-wise though, I'm concerned that the shape and size of the central pod causes too much constriction, making space controlling/choke dependent strategies too strong. While I like maps that occasionally favor either choke (Marine tank, sentry colossus, broodlord infestor) or surround/open ground (Marine marauder, Zealot archon, anything zerg does in the early to mid game) strats over the other, I think that there should always be a bit of wiggle room for the less favored one with smart play, and I just don't see how an open ground strat can engage anywhere, especially when the center expansions are taken. I think you would see a lot more variety in army composition and more dynamic play during the late mid-game (and onwards) if that high ground was shrunk a bit in all dimensions. That being said, though, I'm liking that the thirds are relatively isolated, which will hopefully encourage more early-mid game aggression. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QYqSu.jpg) (I put trees,etc. on the raised parts in the middle to make it clear that those are not passable) | ||
|
Pax
United States175 Posts
I could forsee some interesting games being played on it. Will they be judging this latest version, or the one you originally submitted? | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Looks a lot better now. I could forsee some interesting games being played on it. Will they be judging this latest version, or the one you originally submitted? Hmm, I don't know if we're allowed to edit a map after the deadline, so I suppose the current version (and I haven't actually uploaded the above version as a new version, it's just a possible change). Maybe I'll ask, though. The third base seems extremely difficult to secure with all those attack paths, especially with all that high ground near by making seige tanks extremely effective. It's somewhere between hard to hold and medium. There are maps w/ harder thirds, but it isn't an easy third. The choke width on the outside edge of the third is a super standard width (same as Daybreak and some others), and tanks aren't as much of an issue as you'd think, because tanks on that highground don't really cover all of that passageway, only part of it. Also consider that if you have an attacking force that is trying to come down that ramp (from the highground) towards the nat or up/down towards the third, the defending player sitting on his natural ramp will have the highground advantage. So either the attacker deals with that, or he goes around, in which case it's just like a normal third. --------- edit - updated to the new middle | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Nat-nat is uncomfortably short once the rocks are broken. Fifth base is either against the opponent's main or its too close to the opponent's fourth. Would be fantastic with a viable fifth base and I like the concept a lot, but it feels like it's missing an expo. Monitor's complaints are probably accurate. Even if it could be executed a lot better I want to encourage other mappers to make similar maps. I saw where they were coming from about the 5th being too close to the opponent's 4th, so I got rid of the 1 FF ramp at the 4th (should completely solve the problem). I lowered the middle and made the shortest rush distance ramps only 1 FF each. The rocks-down rush distance was slightly increased when I did this, and if you go that way you're going up a 1 FF ramp near your opponent which is extremely dangerous. Problem solved. I haven't added any bases at this time. Maybe if I extended the map bounds vertically and did a LOT of restructuring I could make something happen, but I didn't want to do anything yet because the "needs another expo" comment really confused me and seemed a tad illogical/hypocritical when put into context. One of the winning maps has only 4.5 land bases per side, while this map has 5. -Maybe- he meant that this map should have an extra base because the 5th is hard to hold, and if the 5th was easier to hold then it wouldn't need a 6th base. Fair enough, but then consider how hard it can be to successfully mine off an island expo (which is what that winning map has to add to its 4.5 land bases per side) and that logic really falls flat. (or if it's just the "all maps must have at least 6 bases per side" idea that a lot of people have, then that is also crap) Anyhow, criticism of criticisms aside, I think some of what they said made sense and here is the result. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JiDKN.jpg) Thanks for looking + let me know if it's an improvement. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
DontNerfInfestors
Spain280 Posts
| ||
|
DontNerfInfestors
Spain280 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
the 11 and 5 oclock bases are 4ths | ||
|
titanicnewbie
63 Posts
I can just see a terran placing a bunch of siege tanks just at the top of the ramp into the middle and cutting off the third, while still maintaining a high-ground advantage. Placing a watchtower would give vision onto the high ground and help with drops coming in to the natural, but it wouldn't reduce the chokey-ness of the area. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
For instance, Mvp was able to beat vortix recently because Ohana has 5 bases instead of 6, and the 5th base is hard to hold (very much like on this map), so vortix knew he had to attack (explanation: he was going through money faster than Mvp because his zerg army wasn't being as cost-effective as Mvp's mech, so he was mining out faster). If Ohana was a 6 base map and had an easy-to-hold 5th and 6th, vortix would have turtled for 10-15+ more minutes on mass spine and BL/infestor/corruptor and possibly won out of attrition. Boring, terrible gameplay. But if everyone wants 6+ bases on every map.. I'll cave. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Might I suggest placing a watchtower somewhere on the low-ground between the natural and low-ground third? I can just see a terran placing a bunch of siege tanks just at the top of the ramp into the middle and cutting off the third, while still maintaining a high-ground advantage. Placing a watchtower would give vision onto the high ground and help with drops coming in to the natural, but it wouldn't reduce the chokey-ness of the area. Hey thanks for the feedback. Was typing the other reply as you posted. The siege tank at the highground thing has already been thought of and dealt with (they can only cover part of that passage if they are sieged up there, it's not nearly as powerful as it seems). But yeah that was an initial concern so good eye. Maybe I can play with XNT placements when I begrudgingly add that 6th base lol. (since it will require a significant restructuring of the map) | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I have a couple ways to make the 5th much easier to hold (the 5th being easier will have to be enough), after I test it quite a bit (+ Show Spoiler + because I'm tired of updating this map tbh :-P I have much more interesting map ideas than this thing Sorry to everyone for this thread being near the top so much (no one has complained but I'm sure someone has thought it lol), I know it's been bumped (mostly by me) more than an invisible man in a subway station | ||
|
MleTempS
Canada29 Posts
That way centre control is more important. just my two cents. Looks good though | ||
|
Gaius Baltar
United States449 Posts
| ||
|
CamoPillbox
Czech Republic229 Posts
| ||
|
DreadLocK
Canada49 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Hey Fatam, it looks like the top of the main ramp can be hit by siege tanks from behind the rocks. Wouldn't that be imba in TvT because one player can do damage and elevator in the main while the other player has to walk all the way around to attack the siege tanks? Hey. I put the rocks as far out as they are for that reason (it's 12.2-13 distance from the closest spots behind the rocks to the main ramp, siege tank range is 12). Good eye though, maybe I'll move the rocks out another square or two if I can so that people have more breathing room for buildings and such. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 02 2012 08:43 Fatam wrote: Hey. I put the rocks as far out as they are for that reason (it's 12.2-13 distance from the closest spots behind the rocks to the main ramp, siege tank range is 12). Good eye though, maybe I'll move the rocks out another square or two if I can so that people have more breathing room for buildings and such. Well, if both players have tanks then they can shoot each other of course, and the defender has high ground vision advantage. If the defender has mixed/bio force, you can still walk up to one side of the rocks and shoot across them at any tanks close enough to hit your ramp (or so it appears). Also, isn't the point of the rocks to introduce new unique situations? (I understand if something is abusive it should be changed, but the players will have ample opportunity to destroy the rocks before a siege/elevator push hits, and that would be part of playing TvT on the map once that was "figured out.") | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Anyway, thanks path for the drawing on the other thread it was good/helpful | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
ShoWTimE vs sebesdes
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Epic.LAN
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
