|
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 Kingdom12027 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 States10354 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 Kingdom12027 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).
|
Wow this is really creative and different, nice work. I think monitors ideas are pretty spot on. Its nice to see some broodwar-y features.
If I were to make suggestions, it would be just to open up the one choke like monitor is suggesting, but for the 3rd base and the watchtower, i might extend the little platform with the tower a bit and put another ramp on the other side, so that taking it is the only way to attack into the 3rd. You could then make that choke even smaller so roaches/spines/cannons could defend from on top of that platform.
|
United States10354 Posts
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.
wat? the brood war map pool has been pretty stagnant with only interesting maps being really imbalanced ones. and they all are becoming the same thing with just different tileset and centers.
Example: Fighting Spirit = La Mancha = Jade
Need I say more?
|
Personally, don't know how much merit there will be to this suggestion but, if you want to keep the map fairly "chokey" then remove the XNTs. For a map of this size I don't see there any harm from having no XNTs. Just more active scouting and army movement like you want.
|
Sweet map. I actually think the only problem is the 1 little ramp leading into the 4th. If it was facing toward the choke leading into it rather than the wall of the other main it would make army movement between the 4th and a potential 5th would be some what easier. If that watch tower wasn't there I don't think this maps 3rd would be accessible. Now that I think of it, giving a player vision might be a nice way to make the 3rd easy enough to take but still give the possibility of pressure. Cool. I might try something like that.
I need to know how you got that smooth white texture because I need something like that. It's the only thing holding me back from finishing this map i'm working on. I can't find it for the life of me.
|
|
|
On October 04 2012 11:33 Drake Merrwin wrote:
I need to know how you got that smooth white texture because I need something like that. It's the only thing holding me back from finishing this map i'm working on. I can't find it for the life of me.
Pretty sure it's either a custom texture or something from the HotS beta maps.
|
|
|
I know some people were talking about closing off the third or putting rocks there, and then everyone started complaining about that "closing off attack patterns". One Idea I have: since we're close to HoTS coming out, why not slap a destructible rock tower there (the rocks that cover part of the area, and when destroyed, make rocks that cover the whole thing).
Other than that absolutely fantastic map.
|
wow I love the brood war feel of this map! bravo!
|
Just a side note, does the title have to do with this?
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/metallica/images/d/d4/Metallica_star.png)
|
wow, one of the best map design i've seen
|
wow dudes, so many opinions. im kinda overwhelmed now, not sure what to do hehe.
the name is ofc from metallica @Kommatiazo but it actually has a meaning on a 4 player rota dont you think?^^ (i thought it fits perfectly)
i will release the texture pack later for everyone who asked.
|
It's a little cramped and windy. You have to offer a choice of 4th bases if you're not going to offer choice of 3rds, and I'd like more path options between players other than 1. low ground lane 2. center control. If the center didn't have the path block in the middle (pure open ground) it's be a good start. This doesn't address the suspect positional balance / expansion options though.
The reason I don't like the limited route options is that SC2 games are already quite heavily influenced by the winner of big engagements. If you win a big fight (probably near the middle), here you automatically have map control and it cuts off every expansion beyond their 3 bases.
|
Is that a 6m1hyg fourth? Pretty neat, forces people to take a fifth base (which, as everyone has mentioned, is tricky) thus splitting up the armies a TON in the lategame. Absolutely love this map and wish I was on EU server so I could try it out.
|
I like monitor's ideas. I don't think I've seen anything like the dead-end expansions that he's describing on a 4P rotational map.
Although, if you follow through with those suggested changes, you may also want to consider changing the towers. I just had a little idea: you could keep them in the same general location, but lower the terrain to ground level, and put a ditch around it, so the only way to access it would be to go to the middle high ground, then walk down a 1x ramp. Units by the third would be able to see the tower, but would have to go around if they wanted to activate it. Only downside I can think of at this moment is Siege Tanks abusing it, but in its current state, if Siege Tanks get there, they would be more powerful. The difference would be that it would be easier for Siege Tanks to push to the third, but more risky at the same time. With my suggested change, if you put aggressive tanks there, and then the enemy attacks the middle, they will get cut off, which would definitely add RvR, make games more interesting, and make the tower less defensive.
|
I would personally get rid of the Towers, they just grant too much vision in such a limited amount of space~
I must say Roach drops would work so cool here against Mech, followed by a nice surround
|
My only suggestion other than the 4th critiques already given would be to not have it named so obnoxiously (which wouldn't be the case if you hadn't included the "icon" so-to-speak next to the name in the title graphic).
|
Yeah I don't really understand the naming of the map. Not that the name is that important but an explanation would be cool :-P
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
