|
In response to people I would say that one of the only maps I like at the moment in terms of 4player rotationally symmetrical maps is probably Whirlwind. Basically because its big enough AND the architecture allows for really nice options if you spawn in close positions, in terms of where you take your 3rd and 4th. Here with this map, and with most maps, you're pigeon holed into take a very linear set of bases, and as such, while testing has not yet began on a large scale of this map in comparison to others like Whirlwind for example, I can foresee a future where people would indeed figure out ways to exploit close positions depending on spawn points.
I full understand peoples point of "why not just make a 2p map then?" but i've never minded the dynamic of a 4p map with cross enforced.. Ok it then makes it a 2p map with the variation of spawning LR RL, no matter.
One great thing this map has going for it in terms of all positions possible is the way in which the third expands away from close when you spawn clockwise of your opponent, but again I can still see a future where it gets to 3base/3base where people are taking massive precautions on their natural because of mega-drop-threats.
I also want to play the map a bit to see how wide open the spaces are in general, I'm a little worried that space control could be too easy and it could be a little difficult for Zerg? That being said there's a lot of potential for countering down paths etc - Will hunt it down and play with my Random partner.
As a disclaimer I cannot think of a single rotationally symmetrical map in SC2 thus far that hasn't eventually created some weird situation with all spawns available. Perhaps Whirlwind will fall prey to it eventually too, we'll see - I think there's a good reason atm why most pro's feel more comfortable on 2p maps such as CK and Ohana.
What I forgot to state in my last post though was, I actually really like the map : ) reminds me of a BW map.
On October 05 2012 23:37 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 22:26 mouzKaelaris wrote:On October 05 2012 21:36 Babru wrote:
Looks really good. You might want to consider cross only spawns though. I would concur. Cross Positions only imo is the way to go. Rotational symetry allows for advantages that should just not be there in an RNG sense if close spawns occur. Thanks for commenting Kaelaris, it's great to have some of the SC2 personalities taking an interest, however small, in the map making process.
Thanks man, I actually lurk the map making section tonnes because I'm really interested in map architecture and the things people are making here.
|
On October 06 2012 03:24 mouzKaelaris wrote:
In response to people I would say that one of the only maps I like at the moment in terms of 4player rotationally symmetrical maps is probably Whirlwind. Basically because its big enough AND the architecture allows for really nice options if you spawn in close positions, in terms of where you take your 3rd and 4th. Here with this map, and with most maps, you're pigeon holed into take a very linear set of bases, and as such, while testing has not yet began on a large scale of this map in comparison to others like Whirlwind for example, I can foresee a future where people would indeed figure out ways to exploit close positions depending on spawn points.
Frankly, if the argument of finding possible non-obvious imbalances hinges on "eventually" then I don't really find it to be a problem. The real problem I see is the severe stagnation of ladder and tournament map pools in SC2. Antiga Shipyard has been with us since July 2011. It's now October 2012. Daybreak debuted in August 2011. Entombed Valley, Cloud Kingdom, and Ohana have been with us since December 2011. Makes sense for maps to stick around for, say, ~8-10 months (over half a year, anyway) since you want them to have a decent lifespan, but we're talking well over a year for Antiga and Daybreak, and 10+ months for the other three. We've hit a point where the bulk of tournament map pools have reached or passed their expiry date. Only the GSL seems to take any effort in introducing new maps*, with other tournaments sometimes (not always) emulating their updated map pool months later.
* To be fair, NASL had a brief stint with TPW maps, if I do recall correctly. It has since regressed into being a GSL pool emulator with all the other tournaments.
On October 06 2012 03:24 mouzKaelaris wrote:
I full understand peoples point of "why not just make a 2p map then?" but i've never minded the dynamic of a 4p map with cross enforced.. Ok it then makes it a 2p map with the variation of spawning LR RL, no matter.
A sub-par 2p map, you mean. Space that's wasted on the 4p format could have been put to better use to make a more interesting terrain layout if all you want is 2p. Just imagine how much better Antiga could be if it became a dedicated 2p map; you might actually be able to design a reasonable 4th base location!
On October 06 2012 03:24 mouzKaelaris wrote:
One great thing this map has going for it in terms of all positions possible is the way in which the third expands away from close when you spawn clockwise of your opponent, but again I can still see a future where it gets to 3base/3base where people are taking massive precautions on their natural because of mega-drop-threats.
It's almost like keeping tabs on your opponent's army location is a good skill to have. It's one of the things that made BW entertaining to watch; players constantly moved around the map just for the sake of figuring out where their opponent was, but you'd never know if an encounter would end up turning into a major battle or if they'd dance around each other. We're seeing this kind of play more often in professional SC2 (it's particularly entertaining to watch the KeSPA players), but I guess it can be hard for players who like to sit their whole army in a single, convenient defensive location and expect to defend everything.
On October 06 2012 03:24 mouzKaelaris wrote:
As a disclaimer I cannot think of a single rotationally symmetrical map in SC2 thus far that hasn't eventually created some weird situation with all spawns available. Perhaps Whirlwind will fall prey to it eventually too, we'll see - I think there's a good reason atm why most pro's feel more comfortable on 2p maps such as CK and Ohana.
I can't think of a single rotationally symmetrical map played in major tournaments that's been much good. I mean, what do we have? Lost Temple, Delta Quadrant, Tal'Darim Altar, Crevasse, Terminus, Antiga Shipyard, Calm before the Storm, Whirlwind?
Lost Temple and Delta Quadrant were awful beta maps. Crevasse had a very unconventional base design. Tal'Darim Altar, Terminus, Calm before the Storm, and Whirlwind all suffer from excessive size (and some of them also suffer from layout/design, such as the exploitable cliff on TDA). Antiga suffers from bad design.
It's not all that surprising that the pros feel more comfortable on much better designed 2p maps. However, like was said earlier in this thread, this kind of argument you're making is like saying 2p maps don't work well because maps like Steppes of War existed prior to maps like Cloud Kingdom. There have been some nice 4p rotational maps released, but haven't been picked up by tournaments -- and by extension, not played by the pros. We're still waiting for our metaphorical 4p Cloud Kingdom, if you get what I mean.
That's awesome to hear how you frequent the map making forum though!  Always nice to hear that guys like you who are in connection with tournaments are keeping an eye out.
|
On October 06 2012 04:38 iamcaustic wrote:
A sub-par 2p map, you mean. Space that's wasted on the 4p format could have been put to better use to make a more interesting terrain layout if all you want is 2p. Just imagine how much better Antiga could be if it became a dedicated 2p map; you might actually be able to design a reasonable 4th base location!
There's a tonne you said that I agree with and some that I have opinions on but, I want to focus in on this that you just looked at for a moment. If someone where to go out and actually give this a go I would be VERY interested to see the results. Whilst the original map has stood the "test of time" pretty much because no one is willing to bring in newer maps, the map itself is pretty much horrid from a PvZ PoV as well as other aspects, and i've love to see it perhaps redesigned to try solve those problems and make 2p.. hmm..
Also what you said at the end, That's one of the main reasons I keep an eye on this section. If I were to see something really special then i'd try push ESL to give it a go.
|
Ok so i'm not a map maker, nor do I pretend to be, so apologies if this is a terribad idea, but for the sake of eliminating potential exploit spots for rotational thingy-ma-do-da.. Could putting trees in the bright green areas be a solution? (thinking of painful tank positioning things).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8CjJ4.png)
EDIT: Also been talking to a few people, and by the looks of things the 4 watch towers granting the vision they currently do give Zerg early on a massive map awareness advantage early on. Since Zerg is so mobile early on, there's literally no way to "sneak" by on the ground if your Z opponent has all 4 watch towers for the cost of 4 lings early. Cross position "sneaking" is especially terrifying because of the way the towers overlap, unless you know for certain some are controlled when others aren't without revealing.
|
On October 06 2012 05:38 mouzKaelaris wrote:Ok so i'm not a map maker, nor do I pretend to be, so apologies if this is a terribad idea, but for the sake of eliminating potential exploit spots for rotational thingy-ma-do-da.. Could putting trees in the bright green areas be a solution? (thinking of painful tank positioning things).
The mineral line is out of tank reach from lowground.
also i have the feeling tanks are not such a huge problem as they were a year ago,also because people expand much quicker. In close position and with a terran on ccw position this sure could occur though. still i think this doe snot really change the balance badly really.
|
On October 06 2012 05:49 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:38 mouzKaelaris wrote:Ok so i'm not a map maker, nor do I pretend to be, so apologies if this is a terribad idea, but for the sake of eliminating potential exploit spots for rotational thingy-ma-do-da.. Could putting trees in the bright green areas be a solution? (thinking of painful tank positioning things). The mineral line is out of tank reach from lowground.
That's not what i'm getting at, i'm getting at lift aggression, using the tanks on low ground for fantastic support.
|
On October 06 2012 05:51 mouzKaelaris wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:49 Samro225am wrote:On October 06 2012 05:38 mouzKaelaris wrote:Ok so i'm not a map maker, nor do I pretend to be, so apologies if this is a terribad idea, but for the sake of eliminating potential exploit spots for rotational thingy-ma-do-da.. Could putting trees in the bright green areas be a solution? (thinking of painful tank positioning things). The mineral line is out of tank reach from lowground. That's not what i'm getting at, i'm getting at lift aggression, using the tanks on low ground for fantastic support.
so the lift would be uneffective because of a small line of trees, correct?
edit:
thing is there is very little space really and lefix can't move the fourth further towards centre. the only other option would be fourths looking in the other direction with their back against the nat cliff, to the same effect as the trees...
do you honestly think that the tanks would be so very effective? in what situation really? I mean you need not to have them so close to the nat I guess.
i totally see your reasoning - on the other hand this is effective in a close spawn scenario with terran in ccw position and the push is not stopped up to this position - i actualy think it is a good idea not to have turle plays on three bases, but punish players who sit back. that actually strengthens the idea of having map control or at least information about opponents positioning. something some people seem to miss from sc:bw.
|
On October 06 2012 05:54 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:51 mouzKaelaris wrote:On October 06 2012 05:49 Samro225am wrote:On October 06 2012 05:38 mouzKaelaris wrote:Ok so i'm not a map maker, nor do I pretend to be, so apologies if this is a terribad idea, but for the sake of eliminating potential exploit spots for rotational thingy-ma-do-da.. Could putting trees in the bright green areas be a solution? (thinking of painful tank positioning things). The mineral line is out of tank reach from lowground. That's not what i'm getting at, i'm getting at lift aggression, using the tanks on low ground for fantastic support. so the lift would be uneffective because of a small line of trees, correct?
Would mean the tanks would have to siege further back, thus having far less potential coverage on the high ground to support lifted units, yes.
In reference to your edit, I think you could probably sheer a little bit off the natural itself to get around moving the 4th.
|
This map resembles Tal'Darim Altar a lot. They will both play out practically the same, in my opinion. The only major differences are the mains being on high ground and the different middle (this includes the fourths). Both maps have a main-nat-third layout that is quite similar, although if I am remembering this correctly TA had rocks at the thirds (you might want to experiment with that if certain races are deemed too powerful).
I like the center on this better than TA's center. It feels like I would have a lot more movement and positioning options. There would be more ways that armies could engage and that makes this map definitely more fun than TA to at least watch.
I am not sure how I feel about the fourths, they seem like they would be really hard to hold onto, but then again, no matter how you cut the cake with a map like this you are going to have challenging fourths.
What purpose do those rocks at the ramps serve? I do not think that they would be needed for balance reasons. Maybe you could experiment with the ramps shrunk a little and without rocks? Personally, I feel like that would be a better way to set it up.
EDIT: As a Zerg player, I'd hate to go up against blink Stalkers on this map.
|
On October 06 2012 05:59 Antares777 wrote:
I am not sure how I feel about the fourths, they seem like they would be really hard to hold onto, but then again, no matte
fourth face the nat cliff and only one XWT and everybody complained about the map being conservative and standard i am afraid.
|
On October 06 2012 06:01 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:59 Antares777 wrote:
I am not sure how I feel about the fourths, they seem like they would be really hard to hold onto, but then again, no matte fourth face the nat cliff and only one XWT and everybody complained about the map being conservative and standard i am afraid.
What I was trying to say is that the way you have it now is the best you will get it without redesigning the map, but it still won't be balanced. If you are going to make a 4P rotational map, it's probably going to be pretty standard/boring or horribly imbalanced. There is really not a lot that you can do with 4p maps, they just aren't as fun to make. The only non-standard/unique 4P rotational map I can think of at this time is Katrina. This map is a great example of why you don't really see any cool 4P rotational maps. It's because the cool ones are horribly imbalanced. So sad :'(
EDIT: Totally forgot about Crevasse. I guess there are exceptions. Crevasse is both unique and balanced.
|
On October 06 2012 05:38 mouzKaelaris wrote:Ok so i'm not a map maker, nor do I pretend to be, so apologies if this is a terribad idea, but for the sake of eliminating potential exploit spots for rotational thingy-ma-do-da.. Could putting trees in the bright green areas be a solution? (thinking of painful tank positioning things).
concerning the tank threat, rest assured that i did pay attention to that.
see how terrain and trees strech out just as far as they need to to protect the natural
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GhT3Z.jpg)
regarding lift agression, what you said is true. however i don't think it is neccesary to completely shut it down by having a huge area of dead space around expansions. i'd say it is possible on most of the maps out there. and i don't think it is our job as mapmakers to make siege tanks completely useless.
|
Lefix, here's an idea of a small thing you can add if you want to slightly nerf tanks in that position without affecting the spacing too much. It's something I use quite a lot in my maps.
Put trees below that cliff one square away from the cliff every other square, like a checkboard pattern in the 2nd rank of squares hugging the cliff. This will add another 2 squares of tank buffer but most units can still go in and out of the trees, and it doesn't reduce the spacing on the middle base that much. It's also a great opportunity for small-group micro tactics.
In the case of your natural design, it might actually be better to reduce the extent of the pathable ground on the upper cliff. I am picturing about 3 squares worth of rows of trees (or equivalent blockage). One of the most difficult things about the vulnerability of the natural right now to tank elevator play is that you can drop outside vision of the CC well within tank range protection meaning that the defending army cannot go meet the drop as it comes in, because they'll be taking tank shots before they're even in range of the drop. If you make a few squares deep of no-path buffer, it's much easier to defend elevator play with correct usage of static defense and dancing your troops in and out. I think this would address the positional imbalance to anyone's liking.
Somewhat unrelated:
I full understand peoples point of "why not just make a 2p map then?" but i've never minded the dynamic of a 4p map with cross enforced.. Ok it then makes it a 2p map with the variation of spawning LR RL, no matter.
...leading to...
Just imagine how much better Antiga could be if it became a dedicated 2p map; you might actually be able to design a reasonable 4th base location!
These are the correct way of looking at it. =)
Basically, if a 4p map needs to be cross only, then it should just be viewed as a 2p map and should be designed accordingly. (The only virtue of cross only 4p maps is that you can have a slightly different center symmetry arrangement, such as on Antiga even though it doesn't make too much difference.)
|
I think the XNTs might be a little bit of a problem (I think someone mentioned this in the reddit thread), for instance if you're in the SE position and your opponent holds both south XNTs, there's literally no way to sneak by unless by dropship or if you're protoss by having a pylon at the end of the cliff and warping down. If that hole next to the natural was just 3-4 squares narrower (the nat would still be immune to tanks so it would change nothing balance-wise) there would be enough space to sneak by.
PvP on this map might be kinda stale because of nothing but blink stalker wars.
Other than those 2 things I think the map is cool.
I didn't really agree with the complaints about the 4ths that I saw on reddit, I think they're ok. People need to stop expecting every expo to be super easy to defend (especially when talking about 4ths/5ths/6ths) and chokey. Open expos are -fine-. **assuming we're talking about 4ths/5ths/6ths. Nats and 3rds of course have special rules
|
On October 06 2012 05:59 Antares777 wrote:
What purpose do those rocks at the ramps serve? I do not think that they would be needed for balance reasons. Maybe you could experiment with the ramps shrunk a little and without rocks? Personally, I feel like that would be a better way to set it up.
I felt that in a close spawn scenario, the third base would favor the cw player as his third would be further away from his opponent. So in return I added the rocks to make it easier for the cww to defend that third base as well, benefiting from the rocks more than the cw player does.
It's supposed to be kind of a zig zag scenario where 1 player has a slightly easier nat, the other an easier third, and then the other having a easier 4th base again, etc.
|
It's supposed to be kind of a zig zag scenario where 1 player has a slightly easier nat, the other an easier third, and then the other having a easier 4th base again, etc.
That's a pretty interesting approach. The necessary tough question that must be asked is of course, will that always be balanced? E.g. what if in a ZvP the zerg gets the position w/ the harder 3rd base while the protoss gets the easy 3rd?
|
Jungle in space theme TT. Not really a fan of it, and feels like it's been done plenty, at least without some more innovation (this looks like all bel'shir textures?)
Layout-wise it's got a cool 4p design. Seems balanced without being boring, so good job on that. I would complain that there doesn't seem to be enough contrast between chokes and open areas, but I guess I complain about that on most maps. Still, idk about the watchtower/center setup. Seems like it kinda encourages players to keep their armies in a blob, which isn't really a great thing. However, the width of the far out paths and their separation from the middle could counteract that.
It seems cool how the nat choke is about as wide as it can be but still be walled by 3 buildings. That seems nice, allowing standard builds but maybe also a bit more aggression than something like a 2x ramp or even a small flat choke like CK. I like the spot to blink or reaper up into the nat as well.
|
On October 06 2012 09:20 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +It's supposed to be kind of a zig zag scenario where 1 player has a slightly easier nat, the other an easier third, and then the other having a easier 4th base again, etc. That's a pretty interesting approach. The necessary tough question that must be asked is of course, will that always be balanced? E.g. what if in a ZvP the zerg gets the position w/ the harder 3rd base while the protoss gets the easy 3rd?
Zerg can much more comfortably expand "away" to the center base than say, protoss. So depending on spawns players will have to plan ahead for a strategy that affords taking a forward 3rd or a more open 3rd.
|
Yeah I said that backwards, derp. I meant what if P gets the hard 3rd and Z gets the easy 3rd. In that situation the Z would be super comfy while the P would be somewhat forced into a 2 base all-in. Of course, there's only a partial chance that they will spawn that way, so maybe it's ok.
|
On October 06 2012 06:25 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:01 Samro225am wrote:On October 06 2012 05:59 Antares777 wrote:
I am not sure how I feel about the fourths, they seem like they would be really hard to hold onto, but then again, no matte fourth face the nat cliff and only one XWT and everybody complained about the map being conservative and standard i am afraid. What I was trying to say is that the way you have it now is the best you will get it without redesigning the map, but it still won't be balanced. If you are going to make a 4P rotational map, it's probably going to be pretty standard/boring or horribly imbalanced. There is really not a lot that you can do with 4p maps, they just aren't as fun to make. The only non-standard/unique 4P rotational map I can think of at this time is Katrina. This map is a great example of why you don't really see any cool 4P rotational maps. It's because the cool ones are horribly imbalanced. So sad :'( EDIT: Totally forgot about Crevasse. I guess there are exceptions. Crevasse is both unique and balanced.
There is a WHOLE LOT you can do to make it rly fun and weird and different. It's just that nobody does it. And the fact that the only interesting and balanced 4p rotationals you can come up with are Katrina and Crevasse is that there simply aren't that many 4p rotationals by good mapmakers who tried to innovate.
If you'd come in the skype channel again you would see all the fun 4p rotational layouts monitor comes up with^^
edit: I forgot to say. @Kaelaris I find it amazing that you not only come here to look at some maps but also comment and give feedback. Thanks a lot, if more known casters/players would do this, the mapmaking scene wouldn't be in the state it is now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
