I dunno, I doubt a 4 player map with close spawns disabled will have any chance in the TLMC. It's basically a 2-in-1 map, except both spawning patterns are quite similar due to the symmetry, so it's more like 1.5-in-1. And I can't remember the last time a 4 player map with close spawns disabled was considered a first class map anyway.

Just my 2 cents...

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

March 30 2014 20:25 GMT

#2142

A 4 player map with close spawns disabled is 2 in 1. You got the other close spawns, plus cross spawns, thus 2 different spawn locations which means it is a 2 in 1 map. You can argue it will still play out similarly, but it depends on how you made the map of course, and with such close air distance in close spawns, I don't think cross and close are that similar.

And G

Germany491 Posts

March 30 2014 20:36 GMT

#2143

Of course it's a 2-in-1 map and yes, there are a differences between the spawning patterns. I'm just saying that those differences are considerably larger on a cross-only 2-in-1 map like Waystation, and that I expect that kind of 2-in-1 map to be more popular and score higher in the TLMC.

It would be a different story if The_Templar's map had different naturals depending on where your opponent spawns, but it looks like even the third base is the same. That's why I said "1.5-in-1 map", because it's technically a 2-in-1 map, but with far fewer differences between spawning locations than on "typical" 2-in-1 maps.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

March 30 2014 21:24 GMT

#2144

Fair enough. I guess it's really is not a real 2 in 1.

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

March 31 2014 01:03 GMT

#2145

On March 31 2014 04:19 The_Templar wrote:
I'm really bad at non-2-player maps so I will be posting here a lot.

I'm attempting a Shattered temple/metropolis kind of map. Close spawns are disabled, obviously.
+ Show Spoiler +

160x160

Templar I think this could work in close spawns:

+ Show Spoiler +

If you can increase the rush distance enough without choking up the attack path too badly. you could also combine those 4 bases circled into 2 bases. The mains could be larger. if anything, I'd say increase the bounds a few squares to accomodate the extra room needed.

[image loading]

And G

Germany491 Posts

March 31 2014 11:25 GMT

#2146

TheFish7, what would you say is the minimum acceptable nat2nat distance with a main/nat layout like that? I think 35 seconds is okay but I'm really not sure about 30 seconds and your proposed change looks like even less than that. I think if you want to enable close spawns on this map, you'd need to make the map wider along the NE/SW axis on top of any changes to the corner bases. And I doubt this will ever be a good map for close spawns because of the weird positioning of the third bases, even if you combine them.

@The_Templar: I'd remove the island bases, and if you want a 4 player map with close spawns enabled, I think you need to design the map that way from the beginning.

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

March 31 2014 11:30 GMT

#2147

On March 31 2014 20:25 And G wrote:
@The_Templar: I'd remove the island bases, and if you want a 4 player map with close spawns enabled, I think you need to design the map that way from the beginning.

Most of the point of the map is the island bases -.-

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

March 31 2014 14:52 GMT

#2148

On March 31 2014 20:25 And G wrote:
TheFish7, what would you say is the minimum acceptable nat2nat distance with a main/nat layout like that? I think 35 seconds is okay but I'm really not sure about 30 seconds and your proposed change looks like even less than that. I think if you want to enable close spawns on this map, you'd need to make the map wider along the NE/SW axis on top of any changes to the corner bases. And I doubt this will ever be a good map for close spawns because of the weird positioning of the third bases, even if you combine them.

In my own testing 38 seconds is the minimum I use... I find I need that much time to defend a 9 pool properly. I agree that making the map wider might be a good idea, if you're going to do that you can also reposition the main a bit and perhaps make the 3rd base (in close spawns) more accessible in the process; the narrow path to get to it is currently very skinny for a zerg defender.

And G

Germany491 Posts

March 31 2014 15:15 GMT

#2149

On March 31 2014 23:52 TheFish7 wrote:

Show nested quote +

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. When defending a 9 pool, surely the important distance is main2main, not nat2nat? I mean, a 9 pool is so uneconomical that there's no need for fast expanding when defending an aggressive 9 pool, and Zerg has only the main hatchery for a while anyway, so why would the nat2nat distance be of much importance?

Or are you talking about ZvZ? In that case I don't see any problem in short rush distances at all, because the only thing it really means is that no one will ever hatch first, which in my opinion is perfectly fine on a 4 player map if it only applies to close positions (and if everyone can have opponents in close positions).

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

March 31 2014 15:26 GMT

#2150

main hatch to primary ramp, ZvT

And G

Germany491 Posts

March 31 2014 15:41 GMT

#2151

Whoa, 38 seconds from main base to opponent's main ramp? That's around Steppes of War distance! I'd be scared of making such a map, much less play on it...

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

March 31 2014 16:04 GMT

#2152

Trying to play around with less ordinary setups for the TLMC. Give me feedback on this one please:

Main base of player 2 is natural of player 1.
4spawns, but no close spawns.

Too turtly?
Too strong for drops/air play?

And G

Germany491 Posts

March 31 2014 16:40 GMT

#2153

If The_Templar's map is a 1.5-in-1 map, then this must be around 1.1-in-1.

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

March 31 2014 17:32 GMT

#2154

On April 01 2014 01:40 And G wrote:
If The_Templar's map is a 1.5-in-1 map, then this must be around 1.1-in-1.

It's a 2.5player map with 4spawns.

And G

Germany491 Posts

March 31 2014 17:52 GMT

#2155

What I mean is that every spawning pattern will play out nearly exactly the same. I've already explained why I don't expect such a map to do well in the TLMC. so I'll just leave it at that. Maybe I'm just stupid and this is all utter genius or something.

Harreh

90 Posts

March 31 2014 22:18 GMT

#2156

So I'm considering some changes to my map, but I'm really undecided.

I think people see the highground 3rd as too defendable so I've tried to lessen that back adding a back door with rocks.
But to be honest I'm not sure that it is completely true and that changes are even needed as it might not even be a problem. Anywhere, here's my idea:

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

April 01 2014 06:23 GMT

#2157

So here's a thing. The idea was a map that's initially restrictive, but opens up as the game goes on with the option to close back up if one so desires.

All spawns are enabled, rush distances are ~60 sec both horizontally and vertically. Reapers can't cheat and become super OP in horizontal spawns because the cliffs between the pairs of bases at 6:00 and 12:00 can't be cliff-jumped. The fastest route for them is only the ^ and v shaped high grounds.

The art style is...interesting, and being adjusted. Keep in mind that, as it stands, the "missing" terrain cells are still pathable.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

April 01 2014 12:05 GMT

#2158

Ah so this was an April fools joke all along right?

No really the style is horrible, it is too distracting since it seems like the map is buggy, even if you know it isn't.

Harreh

90 Posts

April 01 2014 12:21 GMT

#2159

Alternative design:

Phaenoman

568 Posts

April 01 2014 15:08 GMT

#2160

@Harreh: I think since ur original intention was to have only one entrance at the 4th, the changes u've made seem a bit "forced". I hope u know what I mean :D Overall I find the first one more fitting if u decide to change it. Only my thoughts.