|
hiho,
i guess im kinda productive atm so here is my next map. its actually a 4 player rota map which is surprising because i barely do those. (and its not a port lol)
It started as a 2 player which didnt work so i just copy pasted main/nat/third and got this.
If you want to talk about positional imbalance go for it. I tried to protect the third as much as i could, maybe there is still imbalance in the attack route length but thats just what it is on a 4 player rota.
You can figure out the meaning of the name for yourself 
Uploaded on the Melee Section atm, only EU
General:
+ Show Spoiler +Texture: Custom
Playable: 166x160
Expands: 12 + 4 half
Xel'Naga: 4
Uploaded: EU
Overview:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KJIUw.jpg)
Pictures:
+ Show Spoiler +
Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +
Have Fun
|
United Kingdom12071 Posts
This map has everything I love.
A) Third bases that promote army movement, yet still easily defended with good building placement
and
B) Fourth base isn't free, depending on army movement it can be anywhere.
Once again I love your map design. I'll give this a try next time I can. ^^
|
United States10598 Posts
amazing. though there are a few things i have problems with.
3rds. ikr? flashftw commenting about thirds. xD with the imbalance of spawning (say you spawn bottom right and opponent spawns bottom left) where is ur third? so maybe include a half base like at the inside 5 (below ramp and just out of range of XNT).
chokey. tooooo chokey. really need to make more wider areas.
overall great map!
7/10
|
Watchtowers will change depending on where you spawn. If P1 spawns on the bottom left, and P2 spawns on the bottom right, P2 can see attacks coming. To walk around is double the rush distance.
Meanwhile P1 has no vision of early attacks with the current watchtower placement.
|
is actually one of the smartest maps I've seen it in design philosophy. Like many of the greek philosophers, they had incredible ways of reaching conclusions but the results and theories weren't always right because they didn't know everything we do now. Not to draw a complete parallel, but I think there are a few things on this map that could use improvement.
Namely, the third is mediocre positional balance; the biggest problem is that the fourth really sucks and is difficult for Zerg to take. I think there are a number of solutions, but mine offers an easier "defensive" third that expands away from the opponent. The change I'm about to suggest will also open up the map, which is too choked right now.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X0NP4.jpg)
Basically the third becomes a deadend expo and the fourth is moved down. Imo this is a good change because it restores positional balance to the third and the fourth is easier. The side paths can also be wider. And there is an easy for no matter where you spawn.
|
United Kingdom12071 Posts
The trouble with what you just suggested is the fact it then makes the fourth extremely easy to take with little to no army movement which IMO leads to stale games. It makes everything far too easy to defend and I wouldn't normally complain about that as a mech player, but I don't really think it leads to interesting games.
If you limited it to cross position only, then the third thing wouldn't be an issue and the fourth would mean you could move your army around and take another nat/third/main cluster. Also the choke he's put outside the main means you can defend against a big army with a smaller amount of units, which is a good thing.
|
On October 02 2012 08:42 Qikz wrote:
The trouble with what you just suggested is the fact it then makes the fourth extremely easy to take with little to no army movement which IMO leads to stale games. It makes everything far too easy to defend and I wouldn't normally complain about that as a mech player, but I don't really think it leads to interesting games.
If you limited it to cross position only, then the third thing wouldn't be an issue and the fourth would mean you could move your army around and take another nat/third/main cluster. Also the choke he's put outside the main means you can defend against a big army with a smaller amount of units, which is a good thing.
Not sure what you mean? I don't think there would be much of a difference. If anything, the change I proposed would make the army move a little farther (but not much). Maybe you mean map control or something else? Anyway here's a picture showing what I mean:
Original-
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nwJXQ.jpg)
W/ Changed fourth base (two options for a fourth)-
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Hdy8y.jpg)
You are right that my version means Zerg can take a defensive expansion, which may be what you mean that you don't have to move the army much. That is true. I'm just not sure that the original version will be balanced for ZvP an ZvT matchups because of it (Ohana ZvX is pretty terrible because the middle bases are almost impossible to hold). Also this map is very choked so I forsee plenty of balance issues with cutting off armies and such. Maybe the best solution is some testing.
|
Is this tileset your motif now? Like with your motm map, the XNTs are interesting here. Whether they work or not, I like that your first version is trying to make middle bases work. So many maps seem to shy away from that.
|
I don't like the towers. I don't see that they help anything, and furthermore think they needlessly hurt the map's harass potential. The paths/chokes it sees are all tight and thus easy to defend. The defender of these paths doesn't need additional defensive aid in the form of maphack.
I don't agree with monitor's problems nor solutions. I agree that it could be hard for zerg to take a 4th as they're comfortable doing currently; but that given the map's size they should be able to take a 4th safely via nydus if other means fail. I don't see that the map is worse than antiga, which is one of the worst zerg maps in the pool. If zergs can win there (they can) then they'll be fine here as well.
Overall I like the map though.
I might recommend shrinking the hole in the center.
|
|
|
I'd still like to see a little more room between the minerals and the choke at the third, so that zerg has a better opportunity to get a surround for defense. Right now it looks like a siege tank from behind that choke can hit the hatchery.
Other than that I'm loving this map. I think that closing of the third is a bad call because it forces 1 attack path.
I also like the watchtowers because they encourage drops to go either through the center or for the dropping player to pick off watch-tower-holding units, both of which I think are interesting (though there's still a little bit of area outside the watchtower).
|
I don't see that the map is worse than antiga
I was just about to say that I thought this seemed like a less open, 4-base (3.75 kinda) version of antiga, in that a 5th base outside of your quadrant seems very difficult to take/defend.
That being said I think the map has a very neat look to it. I think it will probably need some tweaking, maybe something along the lines that monitor is suggesting, but I'm sure you will figure out something.
I think if you want to keep the towers though, you should stick them in the little corner in the middle area next to where the line of sight blockers end on the low ground. But you should definately keep those pods of land behind where the 4ths are currently as a place to sit some troops defensively.
I think broodlords and mutas will be popular for zerg on this map.
|
It would be a bit time-consuming, but stretching the map bounds by 8 (maybe 16) in both directions and just using the gained space to make the brown / lowground paths a little wider might be a good idea. All those lowground paths are pretty narrow (w/ small chokes to boot), I think most zergs would veto this.
Can't say for sure without some good zergs playtesting it, but imo this is a little worse for Z than antiga, assuming standard BL play and not 2 base muta or something else like that. ZvP would be really hard, FFs would dominate w/ those narrow corridors and not many places to flank.
|
I don't think this is one of your best maps. The XNT idea is a cool one, but I don't think it makes up for the fact that in close positions the distance to your opponent's 3rd is waaaay different depending on whether you are clockwise or anti-clockwise. If you spawn anti-clockwise you have to play defensively as attacking into your opponent's 3rd is really difficult and leaves you very open to counter attacks. Then there's the issue of not being able to get past 3.75 bases, which for a map with 16 bases is not great imo.
|
I love this map very good job
The only thing that is bad on it is the spawn imbalance but it can be easily removed like on antiga or entombed
|
i really like the aesthetics of the map, and it reminds me of crevasse in terms of design. My only worry is that it feels really chokey and might be too tight overall. Just looking at it now, there is almost nowhere that, as a zerg, I would want to engage terran. The whole dark-grey lower ground is just a long, narrow corridor that twists and turns, and never offers any open ground for largescale zerg engagements. And its the same thing with the upper middle ground. It just stays tight everywhere.
Maybe instead of putting the ramp and wasting all that space for the xel'naga towers, you should just put them on the ground behind the single-gas bases. Also i think you need to rework the dead space between the thirds and the mains, just try and make that space more useful, as you need to use all the space you can here.
And another thing is that it seems like it would be very easy for a terran to siege up between your main and natural, in that gap between the dead space, and that would be incredibly hard to deal with, as he can easily elevator his way into your main, and a zerg would have a great deal of trouble getting a terran out of that position cost-effectively.
|
I'm sorry, but all these maps look so alike it's all well and good, but map design isn't going anywhere.
BW maps were still evolving 12 years after it's release and we stagnated 2 years after release. Very sad.
|
your texture set rocks! geometry looks nice, but base layout is questionable with the obvious ccw problem
|
On October 03 2012 03:45 thezanursic wrote:
I'm sorry, but all these maps look so alike it's all well and good, but map design isn't going anywhere.
BW maps were still evolving 12 years after it's release and we stagnated 2 years after release. Very sad.
Posts like this give me brain cancer. Exactly what other map(s) does this map look "so alike" to? Also worth mentioning in regards to map pools, stagnation in SC2 is a consequence of tournament decision making, not a lack of variety in available maps.
|
On October 03 2012 04:46 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 03:45 thezanursic wrote:
I'm sorry, but all these maps look so alike it's all well and good, but map design isn't going anywhere.
BW maps were still evolving 12 years after it's release and we stagnated 2 years after release. Very sad. Posts like this give me brain cancer. Exactly what other map(s) does this map look "so alike" to? Also worth mentioning in regards to map pools, stagnation in SC2 is a consequence of tournament decision making, not a lack of variety in available maps.
Ya lol. This map is an example of a lot of creativity in map design. What you mean is that the ladder and GSL maps are very boring; we haven't rotated maps in ages and tournaments don't want to use risky/experimental maps. But infact, this map that you've taken the time to post on happens to be an unusual map that uses very advanced positional balance and map design that is different than any before (4p sym with effectively 12 usable bases).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tsZ2H.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LoznX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RbTmo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u8sGB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ihFQB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uN1fB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WcTn8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MAl7f.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/exvCw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0b9yF.jpg)
