[M] (4) Apollo

On January 02 2013 20:56 Zrana wrote:
I like the way the paths to close spawns undulate around a lot, so close and cross spawns are both relatively equal except for air. This map looks very well made imo

I personally think protoss 2 base timings would be very harsh here vs zerg; if the protoss gets just a sentry and a handful of units up that ramp the hatchery and drones are lost. Yet if the ramp were made any wider protoss would be incredibly vulnerable to stephano style roach timings. I suppose zerg could take the 4th as a 3rd, but the path to reinforcing it from main+nat is quite long and circuitous. Having said that the protoss 2base all-ins have being seen less success of late and maybe this kind of map is what's needed to maintain balance.

Also an angled view would be great; i have no idea what's going on in the middle, do the ramps go up and then back down or just up to the middle like antiga?

On January 02 2013 22:35 Superouman wrote:

wowowowowow this is so sick, so genius

please tell me it works 100%

On January 02 2013 23:05 Semmo wrote:


Yay Superouman!! Thanks! :D
it works 100%! Etc, that's why I put 2 so you can't do top and bottom. You'll need at least 3 to block the 1x ramp.

And as a toss player you shouldn't worry about third in PvZ; it's really easy to Sim City, man. just simcity and take base yo.

Also, you can stack ultras which means you can basically make a choke indefinitely forcefield-proof.

On January 03 2013 00:59 Samro225am wrote:


the ultra-on-choke idea is very nice indeed, yet i thing the imbalance after third base is quite obvious in close spawn situations. layout is so-so really. so basically you take the four bases close to you, even in close spawn, because it would be terrible to maneuver around if you try to expand away exclusively. expanding towards does not look that bad really, so i think this would be viable.

On January 03 2013 01:33 Semmo wrote:


Firstly, why do you think that expanding away from your opponent is not viable? I think they can take it just fine.. They have an advantage from the harrasser in that they have a choke to defend - most of the expansions are singlr entrance.

Secondly, the fourths don't have to be standard in every map... And its just that one spawn is difficult, but even so its probably not harder than antiga.

Why do you think it is a bad layout? :[ I thought i used chokes and bases appropriately and promoted movement rather than stayinone place and defend. I am not sure if there is a layout that enables all spawns AND is small and cozy thqt is vastly different from this, while promoting movement and not turtle (so no inbase)

On January 03 2013 01:50 Samro225am wrote:


imbalance is the worng word, sorry. what i want to say is that you do not really have an option for third, there will always be one base to go to first and then you will take the other close by base (your fourth). you will not want to expand away into the next quarter (of the map), because your pathing is a bit odd there. the player with map control will easily dominant expansions that stretch our so far. if you can secure four bases, you basically control even more potentially. that is why i say the layout is so-so. i did not write that i think it is bad! in most game situations the map is played through the middle. it is a bit one dimensional. getting caught on the side path, imagine that. also you can react pretty easily from the area in front of your nat to both third options etc.

what i would like to see really (what i think is a better layout) is a more complex pathwork that allows thirds to be controlled, while also a bit harder. try to no have long paths that limit movement too much.

On January 03 2013 02:5ChaZzza wrote:
i really like the tileset and the design but as a zergie i dont like the entrace to the third. it just wouldn't be defensible. you could however, rotate the ramp so it points toward the natural...

On January 03 2013 08:57 TheFish7 wrote:
I really like the use of winding paths to make close spawns more even and viable. But now I am wondering, doesn't that also have the effect of making your 4th base really far away? I am glad to see that you have demonstrated how you can use paths like these to control the distance between areas. This is especially cool for a 4-spawn map which have been relegated to cross spawn only primarily because of the distances you inevitably end up with.

On January 03 2013 07:31 Fatam wrote:
Burrowed ultras is a really cool idea. Should be interesting to see how useful they actually are at that location - most early engages probably won't be near there, and once protoss wants to take that base as a 4th, the ultras will be killable within seconds. I guess it makes an immortal sentry push trying to go through there in horizontal spawn PvZ a little bit more vulnerable, but that would only happen in maybe 5% of all games on the map, and even less in the future when immortal sentry inevitably gets phased out in HOTS.

Still the idea itself is great and has potential I think.

On January 03 2013 10:12 EatThePath wrote:

For a map that's too small for adjacent spawns, the only option is to have all paths go through the center or the extreme edge of the map in a loop, buying more distance with zigzags or diagonals. This tends to either make a boring "it's the middle, stupid" type of map, or a map with extremely isolated areas. Or both, as here.

So far this has been avoided for the most part in SC2, but I think at this point in the game's life it'd be more acceptable than previously.

On January 03 2013 18:38 Samro225am wrote:


it can be done without crazy paths. With some extra size it should not be a problem.

the long paths create awkward situation where in the end you have a one-path map, where most action goes from base to centre to base.

On January 03 2013 19:28 Semmo wrote:



Nope. the ideas i had with this map isnt like that. You shouldnt just increase size. Thayd make the map empty in other parts. Just increasing the size is very lazy; just for the sake of distance? what about the other components like the location of bases the just how far away bases are from each other? this is not a 16 base map.

On January 03 2013 23:27 Samro225am wrote:


you can achieve 42 cross with mapbound that extend over 144. possibly not square, but still.

you are correct on 12bases and empty space - yet i think the winding path just does not work too well as a features, because the 'connectivity' is so low and as i wrote earlier most action will be back and forth via the middle.

On January 03 2013 23:40 Semmo wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +The winding paths are not designed for large armies, they are for counter attacks, Strategical moves, and base defense.

On January 04 2013 09:12 Greendotz wrote:
The burrowed ultra idea is ingenious. However, forgive me for been a miserable cynic, but by the time those bases actually become contested odds are the Protoss will have the resources (obs/envision) to quickly dispatch the ultras and be free to FF business as usual? Seems a little gimmicky, but I still love the lateral thinking behind it.

On January 04 2013 07:11 Gfire wrote:
Uh... It's probably similar to Shakuras. The mid is a similar size and it seems like a similar distance out to the path on the outside. Kinda like Entombed as well. It's far from broken, and, in my opinion, as least somewhat interesting.

I'm interested to see how this map would play out.

Edit: Why do burrowed ultras stop FFs, though? That's kinda weird. Shouldn't they only break them when they unburrow? It's a clever feature, anyway.

FF-proof terrain is really something that could be quite useful to balance things, especially smaller chokes which can often be used for defenders advantage but favor sentry compositions too much.

On January 03 2013 18:38 Samro225am wrote:


it can be done without crazy paths. With some extra size it should not be a problem.

the long paths create awkward situation where in the end you have a one-path map, where most action goes from base to centre to base.

On January 04 2013 17:04 FlyingBeer wrote:
What's the distance from the natural's ramp to the third's ramp? Antiga Shipyard and Shakuras Plateau have similar features, but on both, the ramp is much closer. Is blinking possible from the third to the main? And in how many places? Tal'darim Altar and Whirlwind have the same issue of short air from third to main with a long ground distance but both make up for it by being large maps, and I don't think the ground vs. air difference is as large as it is here. Tal'darim and Whirlwind also features large ramps vs the small ones on this map. So you've got several features that favor 2 base air play more strongly than any maps in current competitive usage.

On January 04 2013 17:04 FlyingBeer wrote:
What's the distance from the natural's ramp to the third's ramp? Antiga Shipyard and Shakuras Plateau have similar features, but on both, the ramp is much closer. Is blinking possible from the third to the main? And in how many places? Tal'darim Altar and Whirlwind have the same issue of short air from third to main with a long ground distance but both make up for it by being large maps, and I don't think the ground vs. air difference is as large as it is here. Tal'darim and Whirlwind also features large ramps vs the small ones on this map. So you've got several features that favor 2 base air play more strongly than any maps in current competitive usage.