|
Description:
Hey guys. Had this one sitting around for a while but it's finally done. Aesthetics are such a chore!
Map is on the big side (for me, anyway). No Xel'Nagas + the way the corner bases are make it feel even bigger. I played with a few versions of backdoors and this seemed like the fairest for all races, along with the most interesting/dynamic. There's quite a few ways to use the main backdoor and the base there.
In the other direction you have an 8 square nat choke (on the small side given the backdoors) with the highgrounds on either side to help defend.
The aesthetics are just a simple, natural look. Pretty decent up-close but they aren't going to wow anyone on the overview. Hope you like 
Aesthetics:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HujrUCd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RNtmbVH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0pECSck.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7JEYq84.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TixpMHL.jpg)
|
+1
User was warned for this post
|
Well done, lots of nice little touches all over the place. But as soon as I look at this I get rock fatigue. I think the lefthand 3rd (4th?) doesn't need collapsibles at all.
I love the aesthetics. They aren't minimalist but I like how uncomplicated they are. I wonder if the rocks would be more appealing if they were visually accented, tying together those 4 bases as one area of the map. Like even something as simple as a few distinct types of tree that is only in that area and around the rocks.
|
Oh wow! Pretty innovative map!
Hope this gets mainstream!
Edit: On what servers is it uploaded?
|
I like the dance between the front and back entrances to the natural where you can go through that choked area that's overlooked by the high ground or have to go farther.
I agree with EatThePath that the lefthand 3rd of the bottom base doesn't need a rock tower, and I think it hurts it significantly as an option for a zerg, and the other base through the main backdoor isn't attractive enough to make up for it.
Also the high ground arrangement of the middle looks like it would create some interesting large army positioning scenarios, but the bases and middle layout look disjointed. Maybe I'm just not a fan of flat maps with high ground structures littering them.
gronnelg, what do you think this map innovates on? Not that I disagree or want to be confrontational or anything, I'd just like to understand what you mean.
|
I actualy want to see what a tower in the middle will do. I think it will make sure that more counters happen because player will not want to move small groups in the middle.
The map overall looks very interesting. Main/nat/3rd have its standard looks but it feels different with the rocks, it makes me feel like the 3rd is really far but its siting right out side the main. Also the 4th with the rocks looks neat and the middle even though it has all those high ground sections it feels empty for me so I suggested the tower addon to make sure there is action happening for map control. I do like the small gap that one of the cliffs has with a hole, it will be a small spot of marines to hide when banes come out, it doesnt look too big to fit 20 marines, so it looks like a nice small detail.
What I do want to ask is what are the LoS blockeds in the corners are for? Proxies? It looks wierd to me but I guess it will force scouting in those locations.
Aesthetics are minimal and I love it.
|
Would it make the map too turtley if you put the 3rd base on high ground w 2 ramps up and got rid of the rocks there? I guess that would give the attacker too easy of a route into the natural. Perhaps one thing that could be worked on is how units path through the middle of the map. I like the aesthetics, especially the use of multiple types of LOS blockers. The layout reminds me of the map i submitted for the pro-am but this one is better executed.
|
Working title: The rocks.
|
I love it!
I really thought of something to criticize and the only thing I could think of would be to make the center highgrounds' ramps even bigger so the map is even more open (I think that is important for interesting and fair engagements). The aesthetics are really cool, too although I would try to squeeze in even more rocks or trees. I have actually never tried this but a 200% scaled tree surrounded by smaller trees could look cool. The rocks used on Akilon & Condemned Ridge to fill the air space should fit as well.
It really hurts to see you guys improve while I don't have much time to make maps. T_T
|
I really dig the vibe. I don't know if I like the tower at the 3rd or not.
|
It's funny, because I actually have a half made map layout with almost this exact main-fourth layout. Only difference is the second entrance to the nat was low ground and had collapse rocks. I messed with a lot of variants as well, but overall I found the results to be super turtle fest.
Akilon Wastes has a very easy to defend third like this map, yet this fourth is even easier than Akilon. If you think about Daybreak, the forward fourth was incredibly open yet very easy to hold and turtle on. Akilon is similar to this as well. So having a fourth behind a tiny choke makes it seem kinda ridiculous.
As of right now, the best position to defend four bases would be to park within the open area in front of that nat and below the high ground. Then, collapsing the fourth rocks and/or wall. Clearly, the army won't be moving around too much for ground attacks, and I suppose you tried to compensate this with a super open area. Yet, that idea to compensate with open area for short army distance doesn't really work beyond the third base. Once a protoss or terran has 3 to 4 bases, they can support the higher tech and production needed to engage better in open areas, as seen on Daybreak. So, the open area compensation doesn't really do much. Some compositions will benefit, such and ling/bane/ultra, which is just overall a bad idea to engage in the open. Yet, it wouldn't be a shock to see protoss or terran throw down a few buildings to choke up the area if needed. After all they are on 4 base...
My biggest suggestion to make this kind of main-fourth layout work would be to increase harass potential. Increasing distances between the backdoor third and fourths would help drops/airplay, but even adding small back pathways into bases that can't easily be walled for ling runbys, or having exposed cliff areas for blink, would do a lot to help mitigate the easy turtling behavior this kind of layout generates.
|
Double post, cause stupid phone 
|
On July 18 2013 06:41 Timetwister22 wrote:
Akilon Wastes has a very easy to defend third like this map, yet this fourth is even easier than Akilon. If you think about Daybreak, the forward fourth was incredibly open yet very easy to hold and turtle on. Akilon is similar to this as well. So having a fourth behind a tiny choke makes it seem kinda ridiculous.
As of right now, the best position to defend four bases would be to park within the open area in front of that nat and below the high ground. Then, collapsing the fourth rocks and/or wall. Clearly, the army won't be moving around too much for ground attacks, and I suppose you tried to compensate this with a super open area. Yet, that idea to compensate with open area for short army distance doesn't really work beyond the third base. Once a protoss or terran has 3 to 4 bases, they can support the higher tech and production needed to engage better in open areas, as seen on Daybreak. So, the open area compensation doesn't really do much. Some compositions will benefit, such and ling/bane/ultra, which is just overall a bad idea to engage in the open. Yet, it wouldn't be a shock to see protoss or terran throw down a few buildings to choke up the area if needed. After all they are on 4 base...
Daybreak allowed you to force an engagement on a choke, from any of 3 directions, by moving your army only 10 squares or so. This is what made the forward 4th so powerful, imo.
This 4th also isn't that much more choked than Akilon's, though the rocks help. And on Akilon you have to defend it by holding that open but pretty small area in front of your natural. Here the area that you have to cover is much larger.
|
On July 18 2013 06:48 RFDaemoniac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:41 Timetwister22 wrote:
Akilon Wastes has a very easy to defend third like this map, yet this fourth is even easier than Akilon. If you think about Daybreak, the forward fourth was incredibly open yet very easy to hold and turtle on. Akilon is similar to this as well. So having a fourth behind a tiny choke makes it seem kinda ridiculous.
As of right now, the best position to defend four bases would be to park within the open area in front of that nat and below the high ground. Then, collapsing the fourth rocks and/or wall. Clearly, the army won't be moving around too much for ground attacks, and I suppose you tried to compensate this with a super open area. Yet, that idea to compensate with open area for short army distance doesn't really work beyond the third base. Once a protoss or terran has 3 to 4 bases, they can support the higher tech and production needed to engage better in open areas, as seen on Daybreak. So, the open area compensation doesn't really do much. Some compositions will benefit, such and ling/bane/ultra, which is just overall a bad idea to engage in the open. Yet, it wouldn't be a shock to see protoss or terran throw down a few buildings to choke up the area if needed. After all they are on 4 base...
Daybreak allowed you to force an engagement on a choke, from any of 3 directions, by moving your army only 10 squares or so. This is what made the forward 4th so powerful, imo. This 4th also isn't that much more choked than Akilon's, though the rocks help. And on Akilon you have to defend it by holding that open but pretty small area in front of your natural. Here the area that you have to cover is much larger.
I wasn't really comparing the actual choke points, but rather the place you position your army with four bases. On this map, you position your army in an open area just like on Akilon and Daybreak. Yet, unlike those maps, this map has the additional defenders benefit that is a fourth choke. Daybreak and Akilon don't really have that.
|
On July 18 2013 07:01 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:48 RFDaemoniac wrote:On July 18 2013 06:41 Timetwister22 wrote:
Akilon Wastes has a very easy to defend third like this map, yet this fourth is even easier than Akilon. If you think about Daybreak, the forward fourth was incredibly open yet very easy to hold and turtle on. Akilon is similar to this as well. So having a fourth behind a tiny choke makes it seem kinda ridiculous.
As of right now, the best position to defend four bases would be to park within the open area in front of that nat and below the high ground. Then, collapsing the fourth rocks and/or wall. Clearly, the army won't be moving around too much for ground attacks, and I suppose you tried to compensate this with a super open area. Yet, that idea to compensate with open area for short army distance doesn't really work beyond the third base. Once a protoss or terran has 3 to 4 bases, they can support the higher tech and production needed to engage better in open areas, as seen on Daybreak. So, the open area compensation doesn't really do much. Some compositions will benefit, such and ling/bane/ultra, which is just overall a bad idea to engage in the open. Yet, it wouldn't be a shock to see protoss or terran throw down a few buildings to choke up the area if needed. After all they are on 4 base...
Daybreak allowed you to force an engagement on a choke, from any of 3 directions, by moving your army only 10 squares or so. This is what made the forward 4th so powerful, imo. This 4th also isn't that much more choked than Akilon's, though the rocks help. And on Akilon you have to defend it by holding that open but pretty small area in front of your natural. Here the area that you have to cover is much larger. I wasn't really comparing the actual choke points, but rather the place you position your army with four bases. On this map, you position your army in an open area just like on Akilon and Daybreak. Yet, unlike those maps, this map has the additional defenders benefit that is a fourth choke. Daybreak and Akilon don't really have that.
I agree with the overall concern about turtling which is why I don't think all the rocks are necessary, but the point remains that it's a lot more ground to cover -- even from a central location -- than on other maps with similar close-at-hand 4 base configuration. If the game is at the point where a fully tricked out protoss army can take on anything in open ground, that means the opponent should have enough firepower to knock down a nexus before protoss can kill or shoo the assault if they are camping mid. This map has a muuuuuuuuch wider total ground width than akilon and longer walk distances too, and more routes, and more openness, and just as much dropability. Still and all I think it's fine to make the defender work hard for the 4th.
|
Thanks for the comments, they were interesting.
I agree I could/should? remove the tower @ the normal 3rd. The one near the main backdoor is good though, imo.
I don't think (especially if I remove the tower @ the 3rd) that the map is quite as turtley as akilon. It might be a little close to as turtley when on 4 bases, but it's much less turtley before and after that point.
|
On July 17 2013 16:45 RFDaemoniac wrote:
I like the dance between the front and back entrances to the natural where you can go through that choked area that's overlooked by the high ground or have to go farther.
I agree with EatThePath that the lefthand 3rd of the bottom base doesn't need a rock tower, and I think it hurts it significantly as an option for a zerg, and the other base through the main backdoor isn't attractive enough to make up for it.
Also the high ground arrangement of the middle looks like it would create some interesting large army positioning scenarios, but the bases and middle layout look disjointed. Maybe I'm just not a fan of flat maps with high ground structures littering them.
gronnelg, what do you think this map innovates on? Not that I disagree or want to be confrontational or anything, I'd just like to understand what you mean.
Well, the paths between the four first bases (assuming the back door expo as the 4th) are different from main stream maps I find (pherhaps especially between nat and 3rd).
The 5th (highground) layout is also cool. Makes for some potential positional defense. I like the middle, for the same reasons you stated. And I also like the lack of XNT (coming from a zerg here).
The lack of safe places for ovies (combing with no XNT) might be a problem though...
I also agree on removing the rocktower on the 3rds.
|
On July 18 2013 12:03 Fatam wrote:
Thanks for the comments, they were interesting.
I agree I could/should? remove the tower @ the normal 3rd. The one near the main backdoor is good though, imo.
I don't think (especially if I remove the tower @ the 3rd) that the map is quite as turtley as akilon. It might be a little close to as turtley when on 4 bases, but it's much less turtley before and after that point.
I think the rocktower backdoor base is necessary. Otherwise the threat of runbys, and possibility of swinging back and forth between nat,3rd, and 4th (backdoor) is to great.
|
On July 18 2013 12:03 Fatam wrote:
Thanks for the comments, they were interesting.
I agree I could/should? remove the tower @ the normal 3rd. The one near the main backdoor is good though, imo.
I don't think (especially if I remove the tower @ the 3rd) that the map is quite as turtley as akilon. It might be a little close to as turtley when on 4 bases, but it's much less turtley before and after that point.
I vote to remove the tower.
|
The lack of safe places for ovies (combing with no XNT) might be a problem though...
Imo 6 or 8 spots per map is plenty (this has 6 overlord spots). If you start pulling a daybreak which has like 14 (not to mention sufficient airspace in a few places) it gets excessive and caters a bit too much to zerg imo. Especially if there are spots that watch pretty much every important passage on the map. Kind of a subjective matter though, not to mention it depends on the map (is it already a good zerg map or not?)
I think zergs are used to having to deal with it, either way. There's been several ladder/tournament maps where the edge airspace and inside the zerg's base are the only safe spots for ovies - there aren't any overlord spots on the map.
Anyway, tonight or tomorrow I'll get rid of the 3rd's rock tower + maybe 1 or 2 other things. Thanks for comments.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bMAEjPy.jpg)
New version. Only two changes - rock tower @ 3rd removed (new opening is 8 squares wide) and there's now a backdoor to that base. The backdoor was kind of a random thought that came to me, but it makes the base a bit more interesting and probably makes the corner base a bit more viable as a 4th, which is nice.
Thanks for looking / any thoughts would be great
|
Blah! Terran OP, especially against Zerg.
|
I think the changes are good
You have an interesting dynamic now on 2, 3, and 4 bases.
One can turtle on this map but there are more contingencies you'd have to plan for as compared to the earlier version.
Finally, the 5th bases favor air play, making the end game scenario very entertaining.
Terran is not OP...
|
Quite small changes, but they have made a big impact. Now you actually have to move your army around, which is really nice improvement. Nice work ^^
|
Yeah, good, and the way you want to position yourself to meet attacks makes it more and more attractive to proactively move out on the map to improve your default angles and paths.
|
I love this map! Looks different, and fun to play on too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Eut0PcV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CRPtoYk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M6Uey9Q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PgrByDP.png)
