A crux map without a super easy to take third/fourth, I think I'm in heaven!
I love the design of the map, the textures you've used and also the layout. It's nice to see another 4 player map too, there's been a lot of 2 player maps recently.
One of my favourite features is the back path that connects both the third base areas.
Reminded me of Frigid Pass somewhat at first, but looks like it plays out very differently after taking a second look. Will have to give this one a try, liking it so far.
On February 24 2013 20:45 ScorpSCII wrote: Congratulations on getting into Crux
This.
Although, the main and nat look uncomfortably narrow, the natural specifically. On the other hand, I quite like the unorthodox expansion pattern, especially in late-game scenarios. This map definitely has a BW look and feel to it.
I've always liked the design of this map, from when you showed me about 6 months ago. Great progress, especially in the aesthetic department.
The layout requires the map to be large- 152x152 is perfectly fine. Any smaller and distances would get short in vertical, especially at 3 bases with a TvX. All spawn positions will work nicely, and it's not linear!
Great example of how to use "wasted space" correctly. The dead space is crucial to making the distances long enough and preventing tanking of the natural. I hope we get to see the map in action.
On February 25 2013 03:33 monitor wrote: I've always liked the design of this map, from when you showed me about 6 months ago. Great progress, especially in the aesthetic department.
The layout requires the map to be large- 152x152 is perfectly fine. Any smaller and distances would get short in vertical, especially at 3 bases with a TvX. All spawn positions will work nicely, and it's not linear!
Great example of how to use "wasted space" correctly. The dead space is crucial to making the distances long enough and preventing tanking of the natural. I hope we get to see the map in action.
Yep!
I wish it was smaller but it can't really be done. Huge aesthetics improvement. Still needs more detail work and a bit of technique, imo, but it still looks nice.
- Is it just me or do the main/nat seem incredibly cramped?
- The cross-spawns seem like the least interesting spawns by far, and I wouldn't want to get them if I played the map. The XNTs are just so strong in those spawns, unlike the other spawns where they aren't quite as powerful. The reason - if you want to use the paths that circumvent the tower vision, you have to go much farther if it's cross spawn, so it's much more dangerous and less likely to happen.
Other than those 2 quibbles I like the map, aesthetics and layout are both pretty good.
I'd probably like to agree with most of the feedback so far and say that the natural does look a little bit too cramped.
On February 24 2013 20:46 Sumadin wrote: Is the destructable debris still not avaliable in the editor since you go with depots? Or is there another reason?
I like the back paths, but i am not sure about the decision to make them curved like that.
If i recall correctly then when people right click banelings on the unbuildable plates/rocks then they detonate on them, whereas with neutral supply depots they do not. That might be a reason some people may still use depots. Also, i think this map is on WOL, not HOTS, which could be the other reason!
Now, for my own feedbck. And it's mostly aesthetics stuff.
The texturing is a little sloppy in some places and I think the grass could be refined a little better, I also feel that the manmade textures look a little out of place. There are crystal doodads scattered near the naturals and vertical thirds but not much near anywhere else. There is one chasm with fire below but not the others, I think it might be nice if there were fire in the other ones too, it makes a nice contrast to the tileset (atleast in-game, not on the overview!).
As for the layout is there any reasoning behind having those bridges that connect the quarters of the map shifted? On the top middle of the map an army going across that bridge the defending player on the right is going to get a much better concave (the path isnt on the edge of the playable area) whereas on the other hand the defending player on the left gets a slightly smaller concave. Not sure if it would have any effect on gameplay just thought it would be interesting to mention.
OK, seriously, why are all Crux members putting (2) after their 4-spawn maps? This annoys me to a highly unreasonable degree, argh.
Err, the map... I really like the layout of the bases. The middle just seems really huge... maybe it's "necessary" for certain matchups, but couldn't there at least be some more terrain there or something? It's just flat ground with a hole in the middle...
On February 25 2013 11:05 bduddy wrote: OK, seriously, why are all Crux members putting (2) after their 4-spawn maps? This annoys me to a highly unreasonable degree, argh.
I'm reasonably sure that the number in brackets is normally the suggested players, in this case it's a 1v1 map or "2p" map. If he intended this to be a 2v2 map he would have put (4).
That's how I've always seen it anyway.
Edit: though there are other people who like to put (4) instead, not sure which way was the correct format all this time.
On February 25 2013 11:05 bduddy wrote: OK, seriously, why are all Crux members putting (2) after their 4-spawn maps? This annoys me to a highly unreasonable degree, argh.
I'm reasonably sure that the number in brackets is normally the suggested players, in this case it's a 1v1 map or "2p" map. If he intended this to be a 2v2 map he would have put (4).
That's how I've always seen it anyway.
Edit: though there are other people who like to put (4) instead, not sure which way was the correct format all this time.
The number in brackets represents the number of available spawn locations. For instance, Lost Temple had (4) despite being primarily a 1v1 map. It's not the suggested players as much as it is the highest possible amount of players. ^^
Also this map looks really gnarly. I wish TL (or anyone else, really) would run another community map tournament, I would love to see some pros play on this! Good job!
Very similar to another map.. Don't recall the name.. The one with ultras blocking forcefields on narrow ramps, but you made that one aswell, right? So I guess this is the spiritual successor to that one.
Anyway, it's good to see some four player/spawn mirror maps, too often they seem to be neglected in favor of the rotational ones (which really is beyond me ('perfect' balance and what not).
The only minor concern I have is that in horizontal spawns if you expand vertically the fourth seems really far away. But I suppose this might be less of a deal than I make it out to be in my head.
Changelog : - Removed Watchtowers. - Removed the LOS Blockers around the Watchtowers. - Updated Cliff to HotS Ulaan Cliff - Updated Rock to HotS Rock - Updated Neutral Supply Depot to Unbuildable Rock - Updated Snow Texture to Kaldir Snow.
Semmo , could you please tell me the set of textures you used ? I'm planning a little arcade mod and id like to at least TRY to copy a bit the theme :D
On July 30 2013 13:48 Cheeseling wrote: It's never going to have close spawn enabled or it's just silly.
I don't understand, the map has no real close spawns, its design makes the rush distances similar in all 3 spawn positions. The main difference is how to defend your third base, and in either case that's reasonable too, so again, I don't understand.
On July 30 2013 13:48 Cheeseling wrote: It's never going to have close spawn enabled or it's just silly.
I don't understand, the map has no real close spawns, its design makes the rush distances similar in all 3 spawn positions. The main difference is how to defend your third base, and in either case that's reasonable too, so again, I don't understand.
For example in TvZ mech top close positions terran has super secure 3-d from it he can safely(through tunnel) move to zerg's 3-d and siege it from highground in no-time. And it has insanely long (due to this lava canyon thingy) counterattack path in comparison to 3d-3d tunnel so terran always will be able to return home in time and defend 3-d. And if zerg takes another 3-d you can safely isolate it from his reinforcements and it might be even worse because you can(don't know how huge this location is) lock him in his base and only option will be attacking your 3-d t that can be defended with statics or even highground pf-tanks.
There's really nothing wrong with random spawns. People just need to stop going CC/Nexus/Hatch first and expect to get away with it without scouting.
Just wall off and bam, no early pools are a problem.
For example in TvZ mech top close positions terran has super secure 3-d from it he can safely(through tunnel) move to zerg's 3-d and siege it from highground in no-time. And it has insanely long (due to this lava canyon thingy) counterattack path in comparison to 3d-3d tunnel so terran always will be able to return home in time and defend 3-d. And if zerg takes another 3-d you can safely isolate it from his reinforcements and it might be even worse because you can(don't know how huge this location is) lock him in his base and only option will be attacking your 3-d t that can be defended with statics or even highground pf-tanks.
Don't take the close to terran third then? If you go take a further away base like the one above your main cluster then it's even further from the terran or even better you could take another main, good luck to the mech player pushing that without getting punished.
I really wish map design up until now wasn't so bad that it's put stupid ideas into peoples heads, especially when mech is so bad In SC2 compared to BW it really makes little to no sense as to why you wouldn't just take another main.
On July 30 2013 20:04 Qikz wrote:Don't take the close to terran third then? If you go take a further away base like the one above your main cluster then it's even further from the terran or even better you could take another main, good luck to the mech player pushing that without getting punished.
If i pick my 3-d in those locations it will be really hard to deal with hellbat drops or 2-3 Banshe opening. Also i need to know if it pure mech deathball or marine-tank, bio-mine before teking 3-d. I somewhat agree about super greedy openings but they are punished with each new metagame shift like early pool against toss works in 80-90% of games. But this map also doesn't alow zerg to punish super greedy 2 cc opening because he can collapse those rocks and safely sit on 3 super safe bases and steamroll you. Zerg won't have enough time to prepare for the attack. And you can't play this map not greedy against greedy opponent.
Same with PvZ its like Red city but safer for P. He can expand towards you and park his deathball near your 3-d on hightground with chokes all around. Another 3-d can be easily isolated with ff and it's pretty vulnerable to air. I guess it's mutalisk map!
On July 30 2013 20:04 Qikz wrote:Don't take the close to terran third then? If you go take a further away base like the one above your main cluster then it's even further from the terran or even better you could take another main, good luck to the mech player pushing that without getting punished.
If i pick my 3-d in those locations it will be really hard to deal with hellbat drops or 2-3 Banshe opening. Also i need to know if it pure mech deathball or marine-tank, bio-mine before teking 3-d. I somewhat agree about super greedy openings but they are punished with each new metagame shift like early pool against toss works in 80-90% of games. But this map also doesn't alow zerg to punish super greedy 2 cc opening because he can collapse those rocks and safely sit on 3 super safe bases and steamroll you. Zerg won't have enough time to prepare for the attack. And you can't play this map not greedy against greedy opponent.
Same with PvZ its like Red city but safer for P. He can expand towards you and park his deathball near your 3-d on hightground with chokes all around. Another 3-d can be easily isolated with ff and it's pretty vulnerable to air. I guess it's mutalisk map!
(bold) Are you talking about outside the natural on the ramp? Those are just normal rocks, making that entrance wider when destroyed, not closing it.
I think you're really overstating the problems without thinking long enough. Although this map is a bit different than others before. But that is why it's a good thing we will be playing on it.
I'm still not a fan of this map but another community map in the ladder is amazing! Will be interesting to see how this map plays out once thousands of people start playing on it. Part of me thinks it might have to go Cross Only, but hopefully it can stay with all spawns viable.
They basically changed the textures to Typhon + snow, and the mains are textured the same as on Yeonsu. They also re-added the watchtowers, and probably would have put them there, even if they were never there to begin with. Not cool, given they probably didn't discuss this with Semmo at all.
My patience with Blizzard is wearing thin at this point.
I wouldn't mind the watchtower addition if they had some purpose, but on this map it's just stupid. Still a great map, but it was far better without the watchtowers.
They seem to have purpose enough to me. A single unit is enough to cover each bridge. But their is still options to go around on the outer bridges which is always nice.
You can agree with them or not, but i would not really say they are purposeless. It seems fairly obvious.
I agree, i think adding the watchtowers to frozen is far worse than what they did to Yeonsu, in yeonsu the flow of the map and army positioning stays the same with these rocks and the semi islands, but in frozen the army positioning changes drastically with these xel'naga watch towers, if these where destructible or timed xel'nagas then the map wouldn't get stagnated in the lategame, but they are not ~.~
I have to say, despite the map being utterly generic, playing games on it does give me that old Typhoon Peaks vibe again back when the game was still about zealot runbies and warp prism harass, contrary to most modern maps there are indeed so many different avenues of attack to take to specific places.
On August 26 2013 08:48 Sumadin wrote: They seem to have purpose enough to me. A single unit is enough to cover each bridge. But their is still options to go around on the outer bridges which is always nice.
You can agree with them or not, but i would not really say they are purposeless. It seems fairly obvious.
The thing is, a single unit was enough to cover each bridge BEFORE the Watchtowers were added, which still promotes map awareness without letting players be lazy about it and gaining extra vision.
So now the LOS blockers with it provide positional advantage and more interesting terrain play. I just lost a PvT because a Terran used the blockers against me, had a raven so I couldn't get vision in the bush were all the ghosts were but I had to attack and got stomped, really cool play.
On September 21 2013 18:12 Semmo wrote: No Totalbiscuit Post on Frost... Please post on my map too. Thanks.
Also, I mean obviously there are some map flaws to Yeonsu, which gives advantage to certain races. And I don't know if the map makes those map flaws in delibration or whatever. But the map is different from the rest of the map pool, which isn't so bad. And it's too late to change it, since Blizzard really didn't test it or consult anyone.
My suggestions:
- Remove towers - Add another pathway on the sides of map - Fix main ramp - Fix Main, make map bigger or something
I've voted for your map in the TLMC but I've always felt that something was missing something Eventhough the map is really big, I see a ton of one sided games on this map and very few great macro games like we used to see on whirlwind or Taldarim altar. There's something wrong with this map imo (It's usually some 2 or 3 base aggression and a player gets his 4th base when the opponent is almost dead). I don't think that blizzard will make any major change to it but they should. At the moment it's way too easy to attack the third base while denying/harrassing the 4th and taking a 5th base isn't even a possibility
Semmo, are you ok with the kind of games that are played or your map or did you expect it to be the new macro game map replacing whirlwind ? What changes would you make (if you think the map needs some changes) ?
LOL I meant TotalBiscuit to comment on my map, it's ok you don't have to bump it xD
I guess most of the games you see only go to 3 Bases but in the Pro games that I have seen (RSL and GSL and stuff), game went to 4 Bases+. I think currently Watchtower is pretty bad, so next season the watchtowers will probably be removed. I asked Blizzard at least.
Also, my map isn't supposed to replace whirlwind. It is supposed to show very different play depending on spawns. My plan was:
Horizontal: Quite agressive, but you can still take 4th. It should play out like Newkirk, but with opportunities to create flanks or counter attacks through the bridge. Also you could actually both take the bases near the bridge, which can create tension.
Vertical: Focus is on two attack paths, which I see being used a lot (one thing I'm happy about). I didn't think 4th would be taken as much as horizontal or diagonal, as it is quite far away. (But still I don't think it's harder than, say, Antiga for example).
Diagonal: This spawn I guessed would have more macro.
So yeah. I didn't think it would create 4base + games on vertical, but on 3 bases it is still "macro", I think. And hopefully as the map gets played a lot (200+ games) It will be what I expected.
I'm not TB but even without your message I would have bumped it (consider that if TB isn't whining on this thread, you did a good job !) The way people play on this map eventhough it's huge has always bugged me.
I find that people are really not adapting to maps, whenever I get a Zerg on horizontal position I win because they build the base that is close to me which allows me to siege it from above with my ranged units. Overall when I first saw the map I did not like it that much, but after so many games on it, its my favorite map on the pool.
On September 21 2013 23:51 moskonia wrote: I find that people are really not adapting to maps, whenever I get a Zerg on horizontal position I win because they build the base that is close to me which allows me to siege it from above with my ranged units. Overall when I first saw the map I did not like it that much, but after so many games on it, its my favorite map on the pool.
Yeah, I played a zerg that sixpooled here thinking it was cross only. Turns out we were cross positions! I still won but the way people play on this map is so dumb haha.
On September 21 2013 23:51 moskonia wrote: I find that people are really not adapting to maps, whenever I get a Zerg on horizontal position I win because they build the base that is close to me which allows me to siege it from above with my ranged units. Overall when I first saw the map I did not like it that much, but after so many games on it, its my favorite map on the pool.
Yeah, it is kind of funny how zergs keep on thinking it is cross only and go on with this close-to-horizontal-spawn base. And yes, it is sick map (zerg player here).
I continue to have great games on this map. The early game doesn't really vary between positions as much as I thought it might, but the 3rd base pressure phase of the game obviously varies a lot depending on positions. The lategame gets very interesting at 5+ bases where you have to guard two sides of the map. Counterthreats are very well rewarded in terms of positional jockeying.
On September 21 2013 18:46 algue wrote: I'm not TB but even without your message I would have bumped it (consider that if TB isn't whining on this thread, you did a good job !) The way people play on this map eventhough it's huge has always bugged me.
"Professional commentators are not allowed opinions on maps" - Random Teamliquid posters
On September 21 2013 18:46 algue wrote: I'm not TB but even without your message I would have bumped it (consider that if TB isn't whining on this thread, you did a good job !) The way people play on this map eventhough it's huge has always bugged me.
"Professional commentators are not allowed opinions on maps" - Random Teamliquid posters
Any place where i can see/hear the exact reasons why you personally don't like this map TB? (i could search them by myself but i haven't had lots of time lately)
On September 21 2013 18:46 algue wrote: I'm not TB but even without your message I would have bumped it (consider that if TB isn't whining on this thread, you did a good job !) The way people play on this map eventhough it's huge has always bugged me.
"Professional commentators are not allowed opinions on maps" - Random Teamliquid posters
Any place where i can see/hear the exact reasons why you personally don't like this map TB? (i could search them by myself but i haven't had lots of time lately)
I actually like Frost, I dunno where he got that from. My players like it too. My concern was over Yeonsu, which resulted in people calling me terrible and disregarding my opinion, so I provided quotes from pro-players that backed it up.
I've been having some really great ZvT's on this map. Most usually play to the late game and even had some go into the ultra late game. The towers are too powerful though, didn't like their addition
On September 26 2013 12:05 eTcetRa wrote: I've been having some really great ZvT's on this map. Most usually play to the late game and even had some go into the ultra late game. The towers are too powerful though, didn't like their addition
I actually really like them a lot because of their power. They encourage the use of the side paths, as well as more harass such as drops. Additionally, they make the middle something to fight for in long macro games, which isn't seen on hardly any other map.
On September 26 2013 12:05 eTcetRa wrote: I've been having some really great ZvT's on this map. Most usually play to the late game and even had some go into the ultra late game. The towers are too powerful though, didn't like their addition
I actually really like them a lot because of their power. They encourage the use of the side paths, as well as more harass such as drops. Additionally, they make the middle something to fight for in long macro games, which isn't seen on hardly any other map.
I can definitely see both sides of this viewpoint. While I don't really like them in concept, overall I think I they are a good thing for the map. Crucially, it is hard to just camp out in the middle on the towers, because you'll get harassed or beaten back, so it's an active late game asset and not something for the player with the lead to lean on.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KpYAI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gtfJ7qB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EVPdsjO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FJV1KyF.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RSRDNYR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JnatLwD.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/99geBgj.png)
]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KVuFh3F.png)
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/V808K5QKNQ871377038361119.jpg)
No Totalbiscuit Post on Frost... Please post on my map too. Thanks.
