|
Thread updated: 6/11/13
ESV Ravage
2nd Place in TLMC2!
Map created by: IronManSC
Version 1.4 all servers
Uploaded to: [NA] [EU] [KR] [SEA]
Published as: ESV Ravage
Change Log: (updated 6/11/13)
+ Show Spoiler [1.4] +
1) 3rd bases re-designed (a little more chokier)
2) 4th bases re-designed (less open, one entrance)
3) Several ramps added to create better flow
4) Destructible rocks in the middle were moved closer to the naturals
5) Collapsable Rocks added
6) Grass/Brick textures cleaned up
7) Major pathing and doodad bugs fixed
+ Show Spoiler [1.2] +
1) 4th bases re-designed
2) The cliffs next to the large destructible rocks are no longer pathable
3) The ramps to the 3rds are widened by 1
4) Map resized to 136x140 and still retains the exact concept
5) texture, pathing, foliage fixes
Replays: (out-dated)
+ Show Spoiler +ESV Ravage LIVE map test games (Day 1): Watch VODESV Ravage LIVE map test games (Day 2): Watch VOD
Overview updated 6/11/13
Introduction: (updated 6/11/13)
ESV Ravage is actually based entirely off my big hit, Ohana LE. I literally opened Ohana in the editor and transformed it into this (see vods below). I almost had another beach theme going, but I felt it was time to give starcraft another desert map instead. The concept is similar to Cloud Kingdom with an S-shaped high ground path, however the center high ground area is what really sets it apart. While this is a pretty generic map, the atmosphere when playing on this map is definitely something that makes it cool, and the terrain style keeps you looking and figuring it out as if it was a maze. I didn't really care much for the border aesthetics on this one since it's a desert so there's not much that should be going on anyways, so I just added a lot of rocks.
Poll: Rate this map7-9 (Good/has potential) (57) 54% 10 (Awesome, Would play again!) (22) 21% 4-6 (It's ok/decent) (18) 17% 1-3 (Bad) (9) 8% 106 total votes Your vote: Rate this map (Vote): 1-3 (Bad)
(Vote): 4-6 (It's ok/decent)
(Vote): 7-9 (Good/has potential)
(Vote): 10 (Awesome, Would play again!)
Turning Ohana into Ravage (vods): (out-dated)
+ Show Spoiler +
Map Info:
Size: 136x140
Rush Distances:
Main to Main: 52 in-game seconds
Nat to Nat: 43 in-game seconds
Pictures: (updated 6/11/13)
+ Show Spoiler +
Have any mapping questions or want to talk privately? E-mail me @ askironmansc@gmail.com
|
This looks like the map i wanna play for the rest of my days! 
GL with TLMP! Liking Khalis a lot too, but Ravage is simply amazing, both layout and textures.
|
|
|
Great design. Looking forward to playing some practice partners on it when I get some friends.
|
A little big and a dull aesthetics-wise, but the layout is solid.
|
Can't wait to load it up and play some games on it. I like the general layout of the map.
|
As you mention yourself, it's not a very interesting layout - but it's solid. Although I think you could shrink the map without hurting the layout so much; 142x150 is rather big. Aesthetics I feel could use some work.
|
Map is subject to change, no worries.
|
Austria24417 Posts
That third seems a little hard to hold for protoss especially, other than that I think it's a great map!
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Reminds me of Jungle Basin, except done right. Nice map.
|
really nice map I will try it out
|
played a few games on this, its a great map!
|
great map, reminds me alot of ohana. would immortal all in/10
|
I don't think it's too big at all, but the 3rd seems too easy for the map size. I would like it if the natural was a little bigger and 3rd a little farther away/not hugging the natural cliff.
|
You cheated, OFC this will get on the ladder.
When in doubt, add more rocks.
Good job
|
|
|
What Ohana should have been!
+ Show Spoiler +Too bad we've already been playing ohana for years... 
|
Changes I wanted to suggest:
1. added second tower
2. no rocks in centre that before made the n2n ridiculous, new highround structure instead of lakes.
3. second ramp to central highround NW ans SE. Bigger and inside ones with rocks.
4. area infront of nat slight moved away from third
5. moved main, nat and third toward middle, made map 10 units smaller (before:144x150; now:144x140)
6. cleaned choked area between third and fourth
7. adjusted third mineral line rotation
8. enlarged third's choke towards fourth by moving towards outside edge, moved rocks to middle of choke where they are more meaningfull
9.made fourth area a bit bigger and rotated mineral line to a more vertical position.
10. enlarged nat slightly
Please note that there are several misplaced doodads in the northern half!
edit: tower range ends at the far away side from the central structure.
since I was given the map file (brave IronMan  ) I was able to quickly implement some small adjustments of the spacing and the new middle into the map to see if it works well.
map image after changes:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PzfGXMK.jpg)
Idea for visuals: make it look like ohana
Reasoning:
1. The original's middle is one-dimensional and the rocks completely useless, they hurt the rush distance a lot.
2. Third is not great, i could not solve this, yet fourth clearly is better now. Both are less cluttered now.
3. the additional ramp up the middle base (rocked) allows an alternative attack path in mid and late game
4. additional path and highround structure in centre give you something to play around with.
5. with these changes n2n choke is 35sec
edit2: The minimap and the mineral layout on it look so much better now. I am tempted to copy it and build another map around it 
|
Frankly Samro, I prefer the original in almost every way (though I do like the idea of 144x140 over 144x150 for a 2p map).
|
Middle is better, fourth is better. Open third is worse and I don't like the new ramps at the central bases. Not a fan of the watchtowers either... just remove them. XNT are out of date!
The third area is still the weak point of the map. It is oversized and has a useless path. I really don't like that kind of thing in maps, because it detracts from the gameplay. Honestly when something like that appears in one of my maps, I try to rethink the design. On Ravage, I advise altering the highground near the third to make better use of the space.
|
On April 24 2013 07:28 monitor wrote:
Middle is better, fourth is better. Open third is worse and I don't like the new ramps at the central bases. Not a fan of the watchtowers either... just remove them. XNT are out of date!
The third area is still the weak point of the map. It is oversized and has a useless path. I really don't like that kind of thing in maps, because it detracts from the gameplay. Honestly when something like that appears in one of my maps, I try to rethink the design. On Ravage, I advise altering the highground near the third to make better use of the space.
I agree on the fourth/third area issue.
this can totally be dealt with by redesiging the left and right edge and playing around with the 5/11 base under the main. this would also make the map smaller (width).
yet this would also effect the middle bases and would lead to a new design of the middle.such big changes were not part of the deal. i only wanted to highlight some problems and suggest some changes. I just hope IronMan picks something up from this cause I would hate too see such a middle on ladder
|
I think the thirds/fourths are good here, although since he added the rock the emphasis has been taken away from the side paths. I was imagining them being 9 squares wide with the rocks and then wider without them, so that can be a major attack point into the third. Of course the third overall would be pretty open then, so maybe a 2-square reduction in the size of the other choke. Mainly it's in front of the nat which is really open, not the third itself. Maybe a rock tower that can fall onto that space or onto that 4p ramp or something?
Third's really not to big because you have to remember there will be a main building there. Once you drop that, the space around it is around the same width as it should be, maybe just a bit big. It's not an awful cramped third like CK/DB where the attacker has an advantage because you have to squeeze past your own nexus. Maybe you could trim it down just a bit so it sticks out the same amount as the main/nat, and pull the map bounds in to match. Just like two squares.
I do think I would have tried to fit it into smaller bounds if it were me but... It actually doesn't matter.
I think the 3p ramp heading up into the middle could be 4p as well so it's a bit more open, being a major path.
|
I like it a lot! The middle looks a little crammed around the XWT though.
|
This feels like the lovechild of Ohana and Cross Point (a.k.a. Spring) -- more interesting than both, imho.
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 24 2013 03:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:
That third seems a little hard to hold for protoss especially, other than that I think it's a great map!
Actually I think it looks okay, as long as you take the one below your main, and you wall off again as you expand vs zerg. Vs terran it looks fine.
|
ESV Ravage now published as 1.2 on all servers
Pictures and changelog are updated in the OP.
|
I don't really like how you isolated the fourths from the middle sections like that.
Did you get rid of the doodads I put by the watchtower? I worked for ten minutes to make that perfect! Really without those though the positional balance is off, since the water pits are different shapes.
I noticed you added some doodads in those low ground spaces by the rocks... I just feel emotionally invested now since I worked on the pathing in there. I want to make sure it's still all polished.
We didn't really come to a conclusion about the space in front of the nat... Fine as is at least for now I'm sure but we should discuss it some more.
|
ESV Ravage confirmed a TLMC2 finalist! I may run a few days where I do live map testing.
|
Map has been undergoing some potential design changes for TLMC2. So far, this is the final potential product (though not published):
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M95pOSP.jpg)
Changes:
1) Side paths raised to high ground. This was done to emphasize more usage for the side paths. The 4ths in the corners are incredibly easy to take, so they should be harder to defend by allowing an attacker's advantage with the use of highground pathways on the sides.
2) Ramps re-textured. The ramps were messy with texturing, so they were cleaned up.
Poll: Good changes?yes (16) 80% no (4) 20% 20 total votes Your vote: Good changes? (Vote): yes
(Vote): no
|
I like the changes, but the top right/bottom left feel a little bare in the texturing/doodad department compared to the rest of the map. Are you still working on those?
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
There's only two reasons I dislike this map and both of them are kind of personal to me. I'm not really a huge fan of 2 player maps as I feel they lead to quite linear games and the only other huge thing for me personally is I'd sadly have to veto it if it made ladder as mech seems after playing a few games very, very hard to ever push out onto the map due to all the counter attack paths and somewhat lack of any good defendable positions with smaller armies.
Outside of those two things and after obsing some games here yesterday, it's probably a solid map and the majority will get on with it, so once again good job. ^^
|
Why does a highground ramp 10 squares away from in-range of the 4th matter? (It does... but not very much, and not directly.) About the highground specifically...
I don't think this change really addresses the problem. That ramp makes it slightly more difficult for the defender to chase the attacker away. It provides the attacker with a place to sit that is psychologically daunting to the defender. I'm not sure this really accomplishes that much. Here's why.
When attacking, especially at the 4base stage of the game, you are looking to cash in on a military/tech advantage that you have been building towards. It can be a deliberate timing by design, or an opportunity that the attacker noticed. Either way, you believe you can overpower the defender and cause damage. This might be a window where you win an engagement and kill workers / snipe a base while they are retreating and gathering reinforcements. It might be a situation where the defender knows they can't take the fight and concede the territory, effectively sacrificing the expansion. In any case, the attacker will attempt to isolate the target of the attack. This would mean interposing their army between the 3rd and the 4th base, which is the only place that keeps the defender away. (Exempting the bizarre circumstance of the defender's forces being at the outside pathway vertical from the 4th.) In order to accomplish this, it makes more sense to push into/around the 3rd, then head for the 4th. Day9 refers to this as a "cut in".
The new double-lane route between the 3rd and 4th provides the terrain for this perfectly. The highground outside path and the angle of the ramp don't really do anything for it.
Moreover, the angle of the ramp makes it really hard to engage down onto the lowground if there is a defensive concave already prepared. Since the outside route takes longer to move through than it does to reposition from the 3rd ramp to the outside ramp, this should be possible for the defender most of the time.
This leaves the possibility of the outside route to have the emphasis as a harass route. In that case, the highground doesn't really matter because it's not in range of the base, and the angle isn't great, so that role for the outside route isn't particularly improved either.
All things being equal, position typically favors the defender since they are generally local and have time to set up vs an army coming from across the map. One way to change this is by providing advantageous terrain for the attacker which would allow attacks based on positional superiority that wouldn't be possible solely based on the state of the military/tech. In trying to emphasize an attack route, you need to give it positional advantages that the other attack routes don't offer.
If you want the outside route to be useful as an attack route, it should open into a widening neck, one side of which leads directly to the base. This will allow the attacker to adjust their angle to threaten the base and/or "get outside and around" the defensive position.
The highground isn't bad per se, I mean why not. It's just not going to do that much. The new connectivity between the mid-3rd ramp is a lot more useful, so that's a good change, but it actually reduces the usefulness of the outside route comparatively.
The cost of the path increase for the outside route needs to be offset by a vastly improved attack angle.
+ Show Spoiler [picture] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mMIQps7.jpg) I think something like this would be much more effective for the stated goal.
|
Also, the third is a lot better now. More interesting this way.
One thing that really holds me back from loving this map is how incredibly blend it looks colorwise. That plain sand look is just way too dominant for my liking and there is nothing to spice things up for me.
|
ESV Ravage has been updated. Instead of updating ESV Ravage, however, the updated version will simply be the TLMC version, which is uploaded as [TLMC] Ravage.
The overview in the OP is updated. Here are the changes:
1) Corner bases (bot left/top right) have been transformed. pathways between the 3rd and 4ths were changed.
2) Ramps widened on side highground paths.
3) Found some pathing issues near the side paths, they were fixed.
|
highground change is good. emphasizes map awareness and positioning vs just defending at your base.
|
Just want to give an update, I have several design changes around the 3rd and 4th bases that I am currently working on. This is merely just a back up in case ravage is considered for a future ladder season. I am well aware of many of the concerns, such as the 3rd being too open, the 3rd/4th transition being boring, and so forth. I am addressing these problems, but they are not considered, revealed or finalized until I know for sure Ravage will go somewhere. Right now we just need to wait and see how Ravage does in the TLMC2 results.
Thank you all for the support thus far!
|
Map & Thread updated!
ESV Ravage is now official. After the TLMC2 tournament, I performed several balance changes to it and tried to clean it up as much as possible. The thread (OP) will contain all the details, such as change log, pictures, and overview. ESV Ravage is also published to all servers as version 1.4
Map will be submitted to Blizzard for review if they request it for ladder consideration.
Thank you all for your support, and enjoy the map!
|
Wow this new update is awesome, now I regret that I didn't vote for this map
I really wish it's going to get added on the ladder next season ! Great job once again IronmanSc !
|
imo this map has gotten worse with every update. does anyone else feel this way? (this is not a reflection on ironman, it's more an observation about how starting in one place and applying the strictures of sc2 mapmaking is not always a recipe for honing in on a good form.)
|
Kinda, yes. Here's something that bothers me possibly much more than it should: There's mostly sand (dry&yellow small stones) and natural cliffs are also ocher (yellow-ish) yet there's grey doodad rocks with moss on them (moist!) and black rock spires on other parts. It's doesn't fit imo.
|
I'm 50/50. I think some of the changes are better, others not so sure. Certainly the first version had a third that was just too open (imo) and made the map favor zerg. So changing the third was good.
I think the rock towers are a weird addition though, as they aren't terribly significant in their current form.
|
On June 12 2013 10:48 Fatam wrote:
I'm 50/50. I think some of the changes are better, others not so sure. Certainly the first version had a third that was just too open (imo) and made the map favor zerg. So changing the third was good.
I think the rock towers are a weird addition though, as they aren't terribly significant in their current form.
It is very significant, because when they are down the third has 2 disparate paths, making attacks much harder without changing the openness.
|
Don't get me wrong, I understand the incremental improvements that have been made, and I even like many of the ideas behind them. But the overall product has become less and less appealing. Just wondering if it's only me.
For example, I like the new rock tower area in theory, but I don't think it really jives with the rest of the map or the lategame flow.
|
I'm really digging the way the map looks now. The normal 4th base has been differentiated from the base near the main, distinguishing each part of the map to itself, where before they were very similar in structure. The 3rd base is easier to defend, and also features more interesting terrain in general. I also love the implementation of the rock tower, because although at first glance it doesn't do much, it's actually got a huge impact. With the rocks down, if I want to attack the third from the outside I have to take a much longer path, or spend time destroying the rocks, and if I want to move between your 3rd and 4th bases, the same thing happens. BUT, if I then take the center expansion, I'm gonna want those rocks gone asap, to help my ground units get where they need to go. It's a slick feature that makes me like this map so much more.
|
On June 12 2013 14:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm really digging the way the map looks now. The normal 4th base has been differentiated from the base near the main, distinguishing each part of the map to itself, where before they were very similar in structure. The 3rd base is easier to defend, and also features more interesting terrain in general. I also love the implementation of the rock tower, because although at first glance it doesn't do much, it's actually got a huge impact. With the rocks down, if I want to attack the third from the outside I have to take a much longer path, or spend time destroying the rocks, and if I want to move between your 3rd and 4th bases, the same thing happens. BUT, if I then take the center expansion, I'm gonna want those rocks gone asap, to help my ground units get where they need to go. It's a slick feature that makes me like this map so much more.
This.
|
On June 12 2013 14:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I also love the implementation of the rock tower, because although at first glance it doesn't do much, it's actually got a huge impact. With the rocks down, if I want to attack the third from the outside I have to take a much longer path, or spend time destroying the rocks, and if I want to move between your 3rd and 4th bases, the same thing happens. BUT, if I then take the center expansion, I'm gonna want those rocks gone asap, to help my ground units get where they need to go. It's a slick feature that makes me like this map so much more.
The collapsable rocks may look awkwardly placed and don't appear to have much significance at first sight, but my intentions (as you mentioned) were to give it a "make it or break it" stance on the 3rds, and later on a path in the late-game. With the center rocks, players are forced to go around the side paths for a long while, which makes the collapsable rocks used more depending on the type of attack and if your opponent has a 3rd. For the defender, this means making a choice... "do I want one entrance into my 3rd, or two?" For example, the illustration below could show a potential ZvT or ZvP situation if the rocks are not blocking the entire ramp:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZHJckka.jpg?1)
The Zerg player can rally at the red dot, and if the rocks remain untouched (not blocking the path), he is able to do a 2-way attack on the terran or protoss 3rd.
Now if the rocks ARE blocking the ramp, and unless Zerg breaks them, these are the two paths that Zerg would use:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TSLip5R.jpg?1)
In this scenario, a 2-way attack on the Terran or Protoss 3rd would require splitting up the zerg army massively for an extensive amount of time, OR they can rally at the red dot (in previous picture), and spend time destroying the rocks again to make it easier.
This all depends on the circumstance of the players. But those rocks, whether used or untouched, can be a win or lose situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nXKnn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uJtR4N5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FznjFjC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RAWRBz6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ic5bIuB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xqBum5L.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SUjVQws.jpg)
