.

I've been wanting to try an idea for island-style maps since the very early days of SC2, and with the recent contest, I figured it might be finally time to try it out. The closest thing to island maps thus far have been stuff like Proleague's Arkanoid or SHOUTCraft Clan Wars' Neo Jungle Valley, maps that are based on the concept of isloating players to allow for greedier openings before opening up later on as a more standard map.

What I wanted to do was basically the opposite, a map that encourages early aggression but later isolates the players' main bases, forcing them to rely more on their aerial capabilities.To achieve this, I figured on using the rising water mechanic of The Devil's Playground.

Of course, even assuming that idea has merit, the problem is still that the map built around it has to be functional, and I don't really know how to do that

.

Anyway, here's the layout for the first concept of Insulation, both before and after the flooding.

+ Show Spoiler +

Pre flooding:
[image loading]

Post flooding:
[image loading]

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

August 08 2014 23:56 GMT

#2429

@Fanatic-Templar
Nice map. However, there's a lot of open space that's really too much.

SidianTheBard

United States2474 Posts

August 09 2014 16:10 GMT

#2430

Very experimental map I was messing around with. Not sure I like it enough to actually finish it as only have the two main attack paths through the middle could be a little dull, but just trying some things out. High ground island base next to the natural. Full Island base + 1/2 base right next to main. Gold base down a long hallway. Tempted to put a watchtower on each of those "pillars" in the middle of the map.

Fanatic-Templar

Canada5819 Posts

August 09 2014 17:44 GMT

#2431

I've tried to remove some of the open space and give the map a counterclockwise expansion pattern.

I really appreciate any help and criticism you can give.

+ Show Spoiler +

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

August 10 2014 02:20 GMT

#2432

Some changes to the area north/west of the natural to be a little more elegant than just relying on more destructible rocks. Also makes it more viable to expand in that direction early on, though that still might be too far for a potential third.
Still 148x148

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

August 10 2014 02:24 GMT

#2433

coppermantis, might want to fix the main being wallable by 2 bunkers.

Uvantak

Uruguay1381 Posts

August 10 2014 02:51 GMT

#2434

@Fanatic

I'll be talking mostly just about the map itself and not the mechanics of the rising water since as you said this was what concerned you the most and that you wanted to have a solid map.

My first advice would be to use standard mineral and vespene placements these will avoid you quite a bit of headaches with inefficient vespene geysers and other things.

Second would be the distance between the nat and third bases, the distance between the main and natural for a standard map should be of around ~29 to ~36 units (Ctrl+M to measure) meanwhile the distance between the nat and third should be of around ~36 to ~48, these are guidelines, not written in stone i should note. In your map the distances between the nat and the third bases seem to be too far apart, same in the main2nat distance, the main base also seems to be slightly oversized, but that may be me looking too much into it, but what's i'm not looking too much is that the vespene geysers in the main base may be too hard to scout for the players, more specifically zergs which need the be able to scout the vespene geysers, a fix for this may be to rotate the mineral line/vespene geysers 45º of the mains, so the vespenes are easier to check and also move outwards a bit the core (mineral lines/vespene geysers), with your current set up it will be very hard for mutalisks to reach the mineral line making muta/ling harder to play, you must always keep in mind little things such as those when making maps.

Regarding the map and layout itself it looks quite nice, this core layout (abyssal city) is one of my favorites to work with because it is quite flexible. For the center i would add a set of ramps here similar to Yeonsu, maybe blocked by very high hp rocks or with triggers so the ramps can't be crossed once the water rises?

For the highgrounds in the edges of the map you should be careful about those a small group of units there can make a huge amount of dmg, i know this is what you want, but the amount of possible damage should not be overlooked.

For a first map it is quite nice i must say, when you are texturing it and adding doodads remember that the more you invest on it the prettier it will look, use everything you have and know for this, for example just by using cliffs and avoiding straight lines on them you can make some very pretty things in the editor.

@Sidian I love the cliffs there, but i'm worried about all the close-by islands and how terran players can send their extra orbitals to them, because of all the islands clearly the airplay in this map is a must, because of that i tend to agree about the central xel'nagas so players can have map control when using their slower air units, it looks fairly interesting but it has many areas that i consider weird like the plateaus where the gold bases are located, or these island bases, they could be moved more to the edges of the map and that way free up a bit of space to tug a more normal third for players to take.

Here's a map i have been working on as of late, i'm liking it quite a bit, it uses the same core layout that foxtrot has since i just love that kind of layouts.

The naturals have been giving me a headache lately, the backdoor rocks to be more specific (this latest version not so much tho), and i would like to hear you guys about them.

+ Show Spoiler +

Thirds and Fourths ♥ The highground.

Center with Archons for scale

//edit lol i took so long with this post that mantis and templar sneaked in a couple comments while i was writing sigh -.-;

skdeimos

Canada155 Posts

August 10 2014 03:34 GMT

#2435

That feels very Foxtrot-esque. I love the aesthetics and the highgrounds near the corner 4ths. Why do you prefer 1x natural backdoors over 2x?

Uvantak

Uruguay1381 Posts

August 10 2014 04:20 GMT

#2436

Because volatility, int the first iterations + Show Spoiler [it had x2 ramps with rocks] +

ignore the mineral wall

but as i expected in late game scenarios players instead of fighting in the middle of the map would try to find ways around the opponent's army, this would lead to a non despicable amount of base races/base trades, so as for now i'm testing it with a 1x ramp and a tighter choke.

Also! the map is published in the EU and AM servers under KTT Transistor if anyone wants to try it out.

NewSunshine

United States5938 Posts

August 10 2014 15:41 GMT

#2437

On August 10 2014 11:51 Uvantak wrote:
My first advice would be to use standard mineral and vespene placements these will avoid you quite a bit of headaches with inefficient vespene geysers and other things.

I feel I have to say this since that picture has been linked more than once: those diagonal mineral lines are not at all typical, there are fewer gaps between minerals than there should be, allowing for easy cannon rush spots. Different formations can have more spaces, and without spacing the geysers any farther apart. It's eating at me because I don't want people to start using that formation without knowing better.

Also, the vertical formation in that picture is not the same as the horizontal one - check the edge of the unbuildable cells relative to the geysers. This is important to note for maps with 4-spawn rotational symmetry. I would make a new image with better formations for reference, but I'm not at my computer atm.