|
Redwoodby Fatam version 1.4 [ NA, EU, SEA] (thanks moskonia and aciesethos) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QSTcQ.jpg) Playable Bounds: 172x112 Rush Distance (main ramp to main ramp): 132 Number of bases: 12 8m2g FFE: + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tBTQq.jpg) or ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fetBT.jpg) : + Show Spoiler +Description: + Show Spoiler +The map is only 112 squares in height, but it doesn't play skinny. The top and bottom attack paths feel very far away from each other due to the shape of the map.
The backdoor is somewhat like Ohana's, but it plays a bit differently. Here melee units can kill the rocks unmolested from the highground, and you can also warp in/blink past the rocks. If you can't get up the ramp due to forcefields or just fear of a bad engagement, you can still harass the natural from the lowground once the rocks are down.
Optional expansion routes. You can expand aggressively towards your opponent or expand to the corner.
Shakura's Plateau-sized mains.
|
Sick. I only have little complaints: You should give the player the option to fully wall with 3 3x3 (banling busts). It doesn't seem like the horizontal third has any advantages over the vertical third. Even if it does help the reaper/blink rout it doesn't seem like much. =/
|
United States10584 Posts
please fix your main-natural formation to allow protoss forge-ge. until then i cannot give any feedback on the map.
|
Your main-natural formation is off. This map will not work if protoss cannot FFE. It has potential but this issue has to be addressed immediately
|
On December 21 2012 13:17 iMrising wrote:
Your main-natural formation is off. This map will not work if protoss cannot FFE. It has potential but this issue has to be addressed immediately
On December 21 2012 13:13 FlaShFTW wrote:
please fix your main-natural formation to allow protoss forge-ge. until then i cannot give any feedback on the map.
Look at the post...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yPwy6.jpg)
|
Lol, all these guys complaining without knowing anything.
|
I think a TL map section meme is people complaining about not being able to FFE on maps that clearly allow it.
That said, I don't really care for the "no expo is ever safe ever" theme...
|
smart XNT placement, i also love the cliff walk entrance and nat low-ground backdoor - really fresh design
|
On December 21 2012 14:37 lorestarcraft wrote:
I think a TL map section meme is people complaining about not being able to FFE on maps that clearly allow it.
So if my opponent goes 7rr, how do I hold it? I need three cannons at the front and three at the backdoor rocks all before the roaches arrive, meaning I don't have any money to actually put probes at my expansion. Sounds reasonable.
Not to mention that you can't even do a wall off with 3 buildings and you have to use a zealot which can just die if a couple of roaches or banelings attack your wall.
So basically the FFE on this map is fine, just so long as nobody attacks you.
|
On December 21 2012 21:06 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 14:37 lorestarcraft wrote:
I think a TL map section meme is people complaining about not being able to FFE on maps that clearly allow it.
So if my opponent goes 7rr, how do I hold it? I need three cannons at the front and three at the backdoor rocks all before the roaches arrive, meaning I don't have any money to actually put probes at my expansion. Sounds reasonable. Not to mention that you can't even do a wall off with 3 buildings and you have to use a zealot which can just die if a couple of roaches or banelings attack your wall. So basically the FFE on this map is fine, just so long as nobody attacks you.
I heard that zergs don't really know how to play against a gate expand. Why not do it on this map ? (I'm terran player and I never touched to protoss so feel free to tell me that I'm wrong ^^')
|
I'm not sure I understand why people think this nat choke is anything weird.
It's a super standard wall-off. narrower than Daybreak although the amount of stuff you need to wall each off is the same
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8izAa.jpg) Daybreak nat choke width - 12![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/13FHB.jpg) Redwood nat choke width - 10
@ 7rr at the backdoor, it's probably viable, but 3 cannons at each location seems unnecessary. You have sentries, after all, to prevent the roaches from getting up the ramp/or allow a few up and kill them, even if they kill the rocks. From the lowground the only thing roaches have the range to hit is the natural geysers, which you don't care about at all vs. early aggression.
You should also consider that because the 2 entrances meet in almost the same spot, a well-placed cannon that you built to cover the back ramp would also cover the frontdoor if one of the wall buildings went down and stuff started coming through.
Not saying the setup is perfect; maybe it needs some tweaking to be a little safer. But I think you guys are exaggerating about how dangerous it is. (tbh, I was expecting flak about how unsafe the 3rd is, not the natural :-P)
|
On December 21 2012 20:17 necrimanci wrote:
smart XNT placement, i also love the cliff walk entrance and nat low-ground backdoor - really fresh design
Yeah I think the trend away from central XNTs (or in some cases XNTs altogether) is great.
I edited the OP to unspoiler the FFE picture. I get that people are busy and might not see it as they're passing through.
Thanks for feedback all.
|
On December 21 2012 22:41 Fatam wrote:I'm not sure I understand why people think this nat choke is anything weird. It's a super standard wall-off. narrower than Daybreak although the amount of stuff you need to wall each off is the same + Show Spoiler +Daybreak nat choke width - 12Redwood nat choke width - 10 @ 7rr at the backdoor, it's probably viable, but 3 cannons at each location seems unnecessary. You have sentries, after all, to prevent the roaches from getting up the ramp/or allow a few up and kill them, even if they kill the rocks. From the lowground the only thing roaches have the range to hit is the natural geysers, which you don't care about at all vs. early aggression. You should also consider that because the 2 entrances meet in almost the same spot, a well-placed cannon that you built to cover the back ramp would also cover the frontdoor if one of the wall buildings went down and stuff started coming through. Not saying the setup is perfect; maybe it needs some tweaking to be a little safer. But I think you guys are exaggerating about how dangerous it is. (tbh, I was expecting flak about how unsafe the 3rd is, not the natural :-P)
Roaches have 4 range, there's virtually no way to hit one at both places. It's also completely unrealistic to suggest that a protoss would have 4+ sentries and units to defend after a forge fast expand and in time for roaches to hit, while also having a transition in to the mid game.
|
I really like the theme of this map! I'm concerned about protoss opening 4 gate and ff'ing the ramp. Its so far away from where spines can be...
|
On December 21 2012 21:06 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 14:37 lorestarcraft wrote:
I think a TL map section meme is people complaining about not being able to FFE on maps that clearly allow it.
So if my opponent goes 7rr, how do I hold it? I need three cannons at the front and three at the backdoor rocks all before the roaches arrive, meaning I don't have any money to actually put probes at my expansion. Sounds reasonable. Not to mention that you can't even do a wall off with 3 buildings and you have to use a zealot which can just die if a couple of roaches or banelings attack your wall. So basically the FFE on this map is fine, just so long as nobody attacks you.
You hold it with good micro and building placement like any good toss on any decent map.
|
On December 21 2012 22:59 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 22:41 Fatam wrote:I'm not sure I understand why people think this nat choke is anything weird. It's a super standard wall-off. narrower than Daybreak although the amount of stuff you need to wall each off is the same + Show Spoiler +Daybreak nat choke width - 12Redwood nat choke width - 10 @ 7rr at the backdoor, it's probably viable, but 3 cannons at each location seems unnecessary. You have sentries, after all, to prevent the roaches from getting up the ramp/or allow a few up and kill them, even if they kill the rocks. From the lowground the only thing roaches have the range to hit is the natural geysers, which you don't care about at all vs. early aggression. You should also consider that because the 2 entrances meet in almost the same spot, a well-placed cannon that you built to cover the back ramp would also cover the frontdoor if one of the wall buildings went down and stuff started coming through. Not saying the setup is perfect; maybe it needs some tweaking to be a little safer. But I think you guys are exaggerating about how dangerous it is. (tbh, I was expecting flak about how unsafe the 3rd is, not the natural :-P) Roaches have 4 range, there's virtually no way to hit one at both places. It's also completely unrealistic to suggest that a protoss would have 4+ sentries and units to defend after a forge fast expand and in time for roaches to hit, while also having a transition in to the mid game.
Lol dude. Your logic can easily apply to Ohana as well. In fact Ohana's back door is the same size and even further away! The only difference is that the rocks are further back. That's a good thing. I still think every map should have natural that can be fully walled but only baneling busts can abuse this problem because then toss needs 4 ffs to fully rewall. Daybreak suffers from this problem quite heavily but we rarely see it because zergs tend to tend not to all in on that map because it's big and open in good areas for zerg. Daybreak in particular is so wide that I've see prepared professional Protoss players lose to roach maxs while they were on 2 bases! =(
Back to this map. The third is reasonable because of the watch tower. You don't have to get obs or warpprisms to spot the counter attacks of a roach max. The problem, I feel, is the other third. It's too hard and it doesn't give much of an advantage.
|
The map does remind me a bit of Ohana, though there are differences, of course, the largest being the size difference.
I am going to started talking about FFE, because that seems to be a hot topic for this map already. The main argument is the backdoor, and how that will effect FFE if the other player decides to be aggressive. Ohana's backdoor favors the attacker. The ramp is directed outward towards the center of the map and is a minor switch between attacking the backdoor or front door to the natural expansion. Ohana is also a larger map, which means longer rush distances, which affect the early game so much. Redwood's backdoor is fundamentally different than Ohana's. They both have the same purpose: an alternate attack path for the attacker and the path to the next expansion for the defender. What is interesting to note about this backdoor is that unless the enemy player is going for a surprise attack, it would be a very poor area to engage in. On Ohana, the attacker has the ability to pick and choose which ramp to use during his assault, but on Redwood, if the attacker chooses the backdoor, his units will funnel a little because they have to reposition so that they can get up the ramp. Units in the natural can fire down on them free of harm as long as the attacker has no sight uphill.
On the subject of the natural, Zerg defense is going to be quite difficult, since an attacking player can push either into the natural or into the main, basically cutting the Zerg in half. On a glance it looks like it will take three creep tumors to connect the main and natural, and Hellions can dash into the main if they are sneaky, because of the direction of the main ramp. I'd personally do a Spanishiwa-type thing and have Queens on hold position on the ramp for protection.
I really enjoy the Xel'naga Tower placement. I like how they are out of the way of the center of the map. It's a good idea for mappers to come up with different uses for the towers than just creating a focus on certain control areas on the map. Redwood uses them defensively to help the player spot the backdoor to the natural and take that expansion as a possible third.
The low ground expansions seem a bit off. It doesn't look like you gave much thought to that area of the map and just went "Oh my map doesn't have 12 bases... Hmmm... I think I'll just add two in these locations because there's no where else I can really put them that would make sense". Another thing to note is that once the player starts expanding in one direction, when he gets on three/four bases, he's going to have to switch and start expanding in the other direction. Late game you will have a lot of harassment and armies being separated to deal with this. This is one of the reasons why Zerg was so powerful on Ohana. Zerg could expand all over the map in different areas and only have to worry about one base going down at a time, which is why Zerg doesn't like expansions near other expansions. If one falls, the other might go as well, and they'd have to defend. Maps that have expansions spread out favor Zerg and allow them to expand unhindered (and sometimes even undetected) as long as they have a strong map presence. Redwood may have this same problem as Ohana in that sense. Zerg is just so mobile and will have an upper hand if too many expansions are like that. Basically, you have to find a balance between expansions in the middle of nowhere and expansions that cover other expansions. Ohana had a balance, but the spread apart expansions were the ones closest to the opponents. Ohana basically plays like a balanced map until late game, then Zerg just rolls over the opposition. Redwood is different. The furthest expansions outward actually cover a path and the loner expansions group together in groups, so there's like a cluster of two or more loner expansions because of how the map splits. Basically what I am trying to say is that the map has minor circle syndrome and looks balanced because all the little features balance out in the end.
The aesthetics are beautiful <3! 
|
I think the map would benefit if the main and natural were more compact to allow easier cannon defense/ bunker defense and the mid map area was expanded. Otherwise super super beautiful map. Pushing the was with the third configuration.
:-)
|
Lots of good feedback, thanks.
I'll probably make the nat a little easier to defend (seems to be a theme amongst the comments), possibly by changing the direction the main ramp faces + some other things.
I noticed something else - Antares in your (very helpful and almost 100% accurate) reply you said "Ohana is also a larger map, which means longer rush distances, which affect the early game so much. "
Not quite true. Redwood is a longer rush distance than Ohana from nat to nat, but from main ramp to main ramp it is about the same. To get to the natural backdoor it also takes longer on Redwood. Also, Redwood is a bit larger than Ohana (Ohana's playable area is 18034, Redwood's is 19264, and that's with Ohana having unused corners in the bottom left and top right).
|
On December 23 2012 02:26 Fatam wrote:
I noticed something else - Antares in your (very helpful and almost 100% accurate) reply you said "Ohana is also a larger map, which means longer rush distances, which affect the early game so much. "
Not quite true. Redwood is a longer rush distance than Ohana from nat to nat, but from main ramp to main ramp it is about the same. To get to the natural backdoor it also takes longer on Redwood. Also, Redwood is a bit larger than Ohana (Ohana's playable area is 18034, Redwood's is 19264, and that's with Ohana having unused corners in the bottom left and top right).
Whoa, I totally thought Ohana was larger. My mistake. The two maps just use space so differently, it's hard to tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1BMsw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PKEWj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Lok1a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l9biI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Evoqz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LTaOQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9NW5b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mAqAo.jpg)
