Generally polished up the geometry while trying to address the points raised about rotational imbalances and z issues. Mains are a little bigger, some stuff is pushed around a little.

XNTs to the sides of the cardinal ramps have no overlap, and can't see into the mains. They also do not reveal the center gold at all.

Fatam

1986 Posts

July 18 2016 09:38 GMT

#3903

some really interesting things here. If you made it into a 2p map I think it could be better, but that's just my take

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

July 18 2016 18:36 GMT

#3904

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

July 18 2016 19:00 GMT

#3905

@sweden: cool concept, but I don't like the rotation imba. Can you post a top down picture I can draw on?

SwedenTheKid

567 Posts

July 18 2016 20:05 GMT

#3906

There's a mirror of the map concept, original was meant to be cross spawns only.

Syphon8

Canada298 Posts

July 19 2016 03:54 GMT

#3907

Holy shit people are actually trying low ground main maps now.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

July 19 2016 04:15 GMT

#3908

On July 19 2016 12:54 Syphon8 wrote:
Holy shit people are actually trying low ground main maps now.

Oh yeah IronManSC posted a map with the low ground main on reddit recently. Personally I dislike them since it means that when defending a push you don't have the option to abandon the natural and hole up in the main. I wouldn't say they're completely unworkable, but you need a damn good reason, and something to offset the problems.

Syphon8

Canada298 Posts

July 19 2016 07:04 GMT

#3909

On July 19 2016 13:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:

Show nested quote +

Heh, my comment from Reddit:

>If you're married to the lowground mains, you should move the XNTs into the main, or expand the ramp.
I really like the patterns, even without any polish, but... you know what is going to happen. You're going to get endlessly berated on TL for the low-ground mains.

He didn't even have to post it here to draw a comment. Brilliant.

IIEclipseII

Germany156 Posts

July 19 2016 13:03 GMT

#3910

On July 14 2016 02:20 SwedenTheKid wrote:
[image loading]

136x192
Mains are farthest bottom bases.
Thoughts?

I really like the map layout. But as people mentioned before the Main to Main distance seems to be too much.
Also, what do you think about switching the Main with the Third/Natural on same Highground so its closer to the middle?

On July 19 2016 05:05 SwedenTheKid wrote:
[image loading]

There's a mirror of the map concept, original was meant to be cross spawns only.

How do you wall off your main here? I would suggest to put the main on the Highground and make the space bigger and the choke smaller. The lowground base would become your hidden natura

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

July 19 2016 21:53 GMT

#3911

On July 19 2016 16:04 Syphon8 wrote:

Show nested quote +

The mains aren't low-ground anymore. I've been working every day on this map and it looks a bit different, same concept though, just no more low mains or back door.

Fatam

1986 Posts

July 20 2016 04:24 GMT

#3912

overview:+ Show Spoiler +

random old hots template I was revisiting. Not sure if worth a damn but maybe

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

July 20 2016 17:31 GMT

#3913

@Eclipse: So I think there are some problems with the main/nat/3rd clump but what I wanted to address was the distances and routes, which I think should be longer and force center pathway more because of the extra vulnerabilities of the mainbase setup. Also to be more equitable for adjacent spawns.

[image loading]

Sorry for the copy paste lighting.

This makes it equally distant and committing to take a 4th base in adjacent spawns, and simultaneously increases the nat2nat distance. The way I made it, it really encourages you to take control of the middle, which I think is good, but maybe you want to add another way into the middle or widen the doorway.

For mainbase problems, I think tankivac will be pretty op given all the cliffs, as well as all the obvious stuff like 2x ramp on lowground main and backdoor rocks. It might be better to make a gap around the cliff if possible, at least on the main side of the rocks. And to mitigate rush strats trying to capitalize on the highground advantage you might increase map size to make distances even longer. Also no-build at the top of the main ramp to prevent walloff and offensive pylon stuff.

@Fatam: That's cool, but I wonder about forcing the middle base like that. Maybe add a pathway (with rocks?) connecting nat to alternate 3rd to create kind of an entombed valley situation. Also, the corners definitely need work, so open and CS.

Fatam

1986 Posts

July 21 2016 07:37 GMT

#3914

is the middle base really forced though? I think the "standard" way to expand if you were bottom left spawn would be main-nat-7'oclock-5:45.. a very simple, linear expand path. Then you might think about taking that middle base as your 5th instead of the bottom right base since it's probably less risky. But of course you can take the middle base earlier if you're, say, Terran and wanna put a PF there and have a nice push-off point. I could see Z taking that base against Z and P too. (basically whenever there aren't tanks in play)

I was thinking a lot about adding the entombed valley path to the third when I was making it (since the main/nat/third setup was already a play on entombed valley).. not sure though. It definitely makes the nat more vulnerable which I'm not sure I'm high on since the nat already has a pretty large surface area. And really the distance to the third is already very tame; I'm not sure it's needed.

edit: a different take on the middle. less siege tank favored, with a sort of ulrena-ish path that can be opened up some.

[image loading]

Overview: + Show Spoiler +

Hellpoo

7 Posts

July 21 2016 16:22 GMT

#3915

Helloo, this is my (small sized) 1v1 map. It is not detailed yet. What do you think of this layout? Middle trees block fly path.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

July 21 2016 20:27 GMT

#3916

On July 22 2016 01:22 Hellpoo wrote:
[image loading]

Helloo, this is my (small sized) 1v1 map. It is not detailed yet. What do you think of this layout? Middle trees block fly path.

Not that bad dude, definitely got the right proportions and concept in mind. The mains need to be around 20-30% bigger, and the naturals need to be smaller. The middle pathway could be widened, and the bases blocked by rocks could instead have rocks on the base instead of the ramps. Otherwise ots a good start

scoo2r

Canada90 Posts

July 21 2016 21:04 GMT

#3917

In addition to blocking those side bases with a rock like IronManSC suggested, they could be gold bases just to give players a reason to knock down rocks. As a terran I can see ways of placing seige tanks at the base that is just below the main, about the 10 oclock position that would control part of the main, natural, and base of ramp possibly, it might be worth expanding the water a bit to prevent this from happening, although liberators could do the same thing so who knows : p

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

July 21 2016 21:45 GMT

#3918

@Fatam: You know I think you're right, it seemed a bit far at first but it's really not bad. And I forgot to factor in that the long rocks prevent the attacker from bouncing to either side very easily. I prefer the plateau hallway in the center, I feel like the new paths will end games prematurely from short reinforce distance. If you keep the narrow wiggle just leave the rocks out imo.