|
Relic Castle v1.1
by Ethan "Lore" Jones
Map Size: 148x148
Published on: [NA] [EU having problems] [SEA] [KR]
(Click image for larger version.) **fog doesn't display on the overview**
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EZjL33a.jpg)
Aesthetics/Close-ups:
+ Show Spoiler +
This is my first 3 player map. I tried to utilize the symmetry tool blizz added but it left much to be desired. As with any three player map, this is not completely symmetrical, however, the rush distances are the same (about 37-39 seconds nat-to-nat.) There are backdoors behind each natural that lead to small paths behind the mineral line. These areas can be used to place buildings or for aggression. The third bases are fairly open and the fourth is a natural progression. Zergs may wish a take their third in the opposite direction if they spawn clockwise from there opponent. Overall this map is still larger than other 3p maps we have known such as testbug, and offers open areas and chokes. Special shout-out to mereel for a couple of the textures used here which were borrowed from a couple of his maps I completed.
|
I feel like there's barely any space in the mains/nats for production buildings (which is much more of an issue for terran) and I'm not really a fan of the fully siege-able natural and siege-able geyser in the main. It's too easy to set up and much too hard to break, especially with only a single space ramp going down to that area. Then I feel like the middle is just much too open and kind of boring; there isn't really any interesting terrain there.
That said, the main/nat/third layout seems good. I like the back-door going in to the third on the natural and it's good to see more three player maps! 
|
I think the best way to make a good 3 player map would be to avoid symmetry and follow the last map jam rules, which were asymmetrical. Since there will be difference is the spots anyways (nothing you can do about it since the game does not allow for 30 or 60 degree ramps), why not amplify it and make it more obvious. I think that even small differences, but still large enough to be noticeable, would be a good way to make the map interesting.
Anyways about the actual map, I think that it's interesting, but I doubt a Zerg will be able to have a positive win rate on this map versus Protoss since the really far 3rd which there will be no way creep will get there on time. About the backdoor, I think maybe a double width ramp instead of a single one might be better because drops there might be too strong, although maybe you can wait for games on that to see if it is needed, which might not be.
|
The nat2nat seems a little short, which is worrisome combined with the slightly distant 3rds, but at least you can always expand away form the opponent (and both directions are basically distant-equivalent), and the push distance is respectable to the 3rds. I don't see why this is especially bad for zerg; I'd be much more concerned about the nat2nat.
What I really like about this map is that the 3rd to 4th positional game really brings the middle into play. It's easy enough to take the next "away" base over for a 4th, and camp around the 3rd/4th to defend those, but you leave your natural a bit vulnerable to a cut-in type move. You always severely concede map control by camping like that. So if you want to have a map presence the only good way to do it is to get on top in the middle and I could see a stable midgame developing very nicely along these lines.
It's just the getting there that is the problem, but maybe I'm not looking at it right.
Also the rocks/harass ditch are cute, nice flair. 
p.s.
i would fix this + Show Spoiler +
|
@Eat the path
I fixed that little issue you pointed out.
As to the overall comments I guess I would have to say that I think the main size is probably on the smaller side but not smaller than what we have seen in tourney play up to now. I remind everyone that the map is fairly large. Also, I have little way of knowing how the harass ditch will play out, but I think encouraging people to make tanks in something other than TvT may not be the worst thing in the world. I think scouting it well should lead players to be able to react to things coming in there pretty quickly. If it does cause some severe issues it can always be changed a bit to have a wider ramp, etc. Outside of the harass ditch the natural is not really siegable except for 1 geyser, which in the past has not proved to be a big issue on other maps. The rush distance is somewhat elleviated by not knowing where you're opponent will spawn from a build perspective and other 2 player maps have had similar distances (ie, ohana,) and Yeonsu is only 2 more seconds rush distance using TLMC rush distance measurements.
@mosk
The third being far seems to favor zerg, rather than hinder, would it not? There are chokes but the map has a lot of open areas too for zerg to engage in. I actually was worried zerg might be too strong here...
|
increasing the size of the whole map and adding a hole or low ground in the center would make the nat to nat distance bigger, make the middle of the map more interesting, solve siege issues on the main, and also allow you to increase the size of the mains to add more production facillities.
It really is a very beautiful and natural map. I applaud the effort, it doesnt look forced at all.
I also appreciate the spawn location balance in that no matter what spawns are rolled, the defender has a much shorter defensive path between nat and third as opposed to the attacker.
I've only eyeballed the map and its hard for me to tell how big the mains actually are but if they are ok as far as current tourney standards are then i guess its ok. You kind of have me convinced its ok.
I know its a big pain in the ass to increase the size of the map but i think it would be a major improvement.
edit: looking at it again i dont think it needs to be bigger, i think its great.
Im not sure if the cliff behind the nat would be utilised for hidden tech since you can see it from the mineral line and placing buildings there might make them vunerable to drops, it would be a neat place to cannon rush from though.
final thoughts; great map, well done. if i was able to play at the moment i would definatly give this map a good many trials.
edit 2: Is the cliff behind the nat the same size in the bottom spawn? Also the cliff being right against the bottom of the map would affect the ability for air play to bounce between main and nat and escape routes. If this is an issue it seems like a small imbalance that could be fixed by moving the map bounds south a bit.
|
On September 19 2013 11:38 Turbogangsta wrote:
edit 2: Is the cliff behind the nat the same size in the bottom spawn? Also the cliff being right against the bottom of the map would affect the ability for air play to bounce between main and nat and escape routes. If this is an issue it seems like a small imbalance that could be fixed by moving the map bounds south a bit.
They are all basically 3 ffs wide. the image kinda cuttoff at the bottom. I would love you to give me some feedback if you play some matches on it.
|
Hey lorestarcraft,
we played Relic Castle in December 2013 on EU Server and had to take it out of our Cup since you can only build WoL-Units. It would be great if you could fix that Problem
|
On January 06 2014 23:36 real- wrote:Hey lorestarcraft, we played Relic Castle in December 2013 on EU Server and had to take it out of our Cup since you can only build WoL-Units. It would be great if you could fix that Problem
That sounds strange; generally maps will auto-load melee dependencies based on user requirements (e.g. if playing with a WoL-only player, WoL Melee will be loaded).
|
On January 06 2014 23:36 real- wrote:Hey lorestarcraft, we played Relic Castle in December 2013 on EU Server and had to take it out of our Cup since you can only build WoL-Units. It would be great if you could fix that Problem
That's a strange problem to have! I will try to see what's up and re-upload it tonight.
|
I tried to fix it but it didnt work, it has hots dependencies. I'm nto sure what's going on if someone wants to offer some advice I'd be glad to take it.
|
On January 07 2014 10:11 lorestarcraft wrote:
I tried to fix it but it didnt work, it has hots dependencies. I'm nto sure what's going on if someone wants to offer some advice I'd be glad to take it.
Are you also experiencing the map having only WoL units, or did you just check the dependencies? If the latter, then I think the issue has something to do with what I said above. If the former... o.O wtf...
|
On January 07 2014 10:33 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 10:11 lorestarcraft wrote:
I tried to fix it but it didnt work, it has hots dependencies. I'm nto sure what's going on if someone wants to offer some advice I'd be glad to take it. Are you also experiencing the map having only WoL units, or did you just check the dependencies? If the latter, then I think the issue has something to do with what I said above. If the former... o.O wtf...
I checked the dependencies. I am trying to work with other things now. Somehow I made it where no players show up at all...
|
On January 06 2014 23:36 real- wrote:Hey lorestarcraft, we played Relic Castle in December 2013 on EU Server and had to take it out of our Cup since you can only build WoL-Units. It would be great if you could fix that Problem
Fixed it! I hope you can use it, gl hf!
|
|
|
On January 20 2014 10:26 mogoh wrote:The map has some wired and terrible bugs. This Tank is stucking at an invisible wall. http://i.imgur.com/Wy7xsPU.png
Haaarg. Seriously, this map. Okay, it was a doodad issue. The problem is fixed. I don't have anyone to test my maps with anymore so it's hard to quality check them as well.
|
|
|
okay, vespene fixed, let me know if anything else is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1EMMPDb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GPELcV9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k2Z96Jg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lxrY0H0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6pTgPov.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8NiBYVa.jpg)
