On December 19 2013 04:25 SidianTheBard wrote: I meant to post this right when you posted this map thread but I forgot. But I had a WIP map named Crystal Cavern that I might go back and end up releasing sometime. Now I have to think of a new name, damn you. Maybe I'll just make it "Krystal Kavern" lol.
I'm a little worried because it seems like after the 3rd it gets a little boring. High ground > Low Ground > High Ground > Low Ground. The 4th/5th just seem so bunched up and close together that I'd like to see something changed with them. Possibly later tonight I'll open this up in photoshop and post an image with my ideas.
Yeah, I didn't want to get too crazy with things since after three bases most of the difficulty comes with controlling space in general. Having to deal with crazy terrain design on top of that just makes things excessively hard. Brood War maps were generally also simple in their design, focusing on only one or two key design ideas; in my case here, it'd be the third base + mid ridges. If you start adding too much, the design just becomes a mess (probably the #1 mistake I see out of newer mappers).
EDIT: Also, apologies on the name ninja. I've had it happen to me a couple of times.
On December 20 2013 05:22 EatThePath wrote: I'm totally stealing that idea with the half base and little LosB hole.
Whenever I make a map and want to do that idea I think it always turns out like crap. I think it would fit in quite nicely here though as well as give Terran a forward third if they wanted. Either way, just ideas. Can always experiment with it in the editor and see how it turns out.
On December 20 2013 05:22 EatThePath wrote: I'm totally stealing that idea with the half base and little LosB hole.
Whenever I make a map and want to do that idea I think it always turns out like crap. I think it would fit in quite nicely here though as well as give Terran a forward third if they wanted. Either way, just ideas. Can always experiment with it in the editor and see how it turns out.
Yeah, I like how it provides a little access point but for any large army movements you still need to bounce all the way around to the two main routes on either side. I think more maps should have little 1-2 square routes like this.
Blue = Basees Green = LoSB Brown = Rocks Red = 1/2 base (maybe gold?)
Basically corners won't have the little high ground base.
Was also tempted to see how strong Watchtowers would be right next to the triple line of LoSB.
Either way, just ideas, take them how you will.
Before I get into stuff, I just wanna say thanks for the time and effort you put into this Sidian. That said, I have a few key concerns with your suggestions:
1.) The half base. Aside from adding unnecessary resources (and ignoring the broken cliff logic around mid), it's situated in an awkward position and hinders the flow of the map, particularly with that blocked off ramp.
2.) The 4th and 5th designs. They perpetrate the "have more stuff than your opponent or die" syndrome that makes it so difficult -- and detrimental -- to split your forces on maps that suffer from this design philosophy. It also means you'll need to keep your army on the far side of the map to defend your expansions, which breaks the third base design (or rather, the design is undesirable for traversing an entire army back and forth through it constantly). This is exacerbated by the stifled map flow in mid thanks to that half base/rocked ramp.
3.) Speaking of the 5th, its new placement transforms it from a 5th base for player A into an alternative 3rd for player B, at the expense of two important areas:
Base proximity gets awkward at the 4th base, instead of the 5th base as originally designed (huge impact on the mid/late game, instead of its intended target of end game and its diminishing economy)
Destroys the key feature of the map: the unique third base design
4.) Loss of key open areas of the map for Zerg. With the shifted terrain, there is no longer a clear open/choke design to the map. Instead everything gets muddled, with no clear benefits: Zergs lose clarity on where their desired engagement locations are, while Terran and Protoss suffer from the same but in the opposite effect (chokes @ 4th, high-ground pods). Keep in mind the map size is 132x132; the suggested terrain removes a number of possible flank/surround opportunities for Zerg, leaving the only semi-desirable engagement points right in the middle of resource locations -- the opposite of what a good map would want.
For these reasons and numerous knock-on issues caused by the combination of them, I'll have to pass on the suggestions. I really do appreciate that you invested your time for me, though.
Fair enough, I'm just throwing ideas out after looking at the map.
Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway, which is why I suggested moving them closer to the main base because then they will play out like they did on Ohana, a possible 3rd for terran (as well as zerg), which means then players have a choice for a 3rd and can change up their gameplan depending on what they do.
I also suggested the half base because of my previous thought, I don't think the 5th will ever get taken so adding a forward 1/2 base (think daybreak) that would most likely be another possible 3rd for terran (or a late 4th/5th for zerg/protoss) would just add more deviation on the map.
Either way, I appreciate that you are taking a stand and not just changing your map because of random suggestions. It's one of the harder things to do because you see suggestions and immediately change it without thinking. (At least sometimes I've done that.) Props bud.
On December 20 2013 11:20 SidianTheBard wrote: Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway...
They're mostly designed for end game, diminishing economy situations -- or, in lesser use cases, as a way to get even further ahead when you have a dominant position in the game. Many Brood War 2-spawn maps had this concept:
Et cetera. Basically, bases you likely wouldn't want to take for one reason or another until you've exhausted other options. It helps to keep the end game entertaining.
On December 20 2013 11:20 SidianTheBard wrote: Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway...
They're mostly designed for end game, diminishing economy situations -- or, in lesser use cases, as a way to get even further ahead when you have a dominant position in the game. Many Brood War 2-spawn maps had this concept:
Et cetera. Basically, bases you likely wouldn't want to take for one reason or another until you've exhausted other options. It helps to keep the end game entertaining.
Not necessarily.
Blue Storm, the 12 and 6 bases were common to take in split map scenarios. Also, in ZvT, it was common for Zerg to take it early on as a third to deplete the resources later for Terran.
Destination, the side bases were taken almost always in late-game scenarios. They'd usually be the fourth base.
Third map is a bad example. Really old map. Not considered balanced by modern BW standards.
Again, fourth base for Carthage.
Asgard never got past testing stages. Unfortunate because I really liked that map. It used a concept I had played around with in the past (low-high ground). However, it's really experimental and you can't really take that as a standard.
I'd say in your map, the side bases seem awkwardly placed in a neutral location. It seems difficult to take for either player.
On December 20 2013 11:20 SidianTheBard wrote: Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway...
They're mostly designed for end game, diminishing economy situations -- or, in lesser use cases, as a way to get even further ahead when you have a dominant position in the game. Many Brood War 2-spawn maps had this concept:
Et cetera. Basically, bases you likely wouldn't want to take for one reason or another until you've exhausted other options. It helps to keep the end game entertaining.
Not necessarily.
Blue Storm, the 12 and 6 bases were common to take in split map scenarios. Also, in ZvT, it was common for Zerg to take it early on as a third to deplete the resources later for Terran.
Split map is late game. Even then, those last bases were very exploitable. No map concept is going to have a perfect 1:1 comparison unless you're doing some uninspired cookie-cutter stuff, but the concept is still there.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Destination, the side bases were taken almost always in late-game scenarios. They'd usually be the fourth base.
There are 4 high-ground bases to be considered in this example, depending on the expansion flow of the game. Again, no perfect 1:1 comparison, but it's there.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Third map is a bad example. Really old map. Not considered balanced by modern BW standards.
Meta shifts as the years go by don't disqualify a professional map from demonstrating a concept that can be -- and has been -- re-used.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Again, fourth base for Carthage.
I think you're looking at the wrong bases. I'm talking about the 3/9 high-ground bases. Either that, or you've never actually watched a game on Carthage, but I don't think that's actually the case.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Asgard never got past testing stages. Unfortunate because I really liked that map. It used a concept I had played around with in the past (low-high ground). However, it's really experimental and you can't really take that as a standard.
Does the fact that a map was only used in pre-season disqualify that it was used professionally and featured the concept I was demonstrating? I can tell you now that a map doesn't get cut in pre-season due to late game balance issues. Those things only appear after many, many games played.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: I'd say in your map, the side bases seem awkwardly placed in a neutral location. It seems difficult to take for either player.
EPT
I've had it happen to me a couple of times.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/shkde2v.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/159_Blue%20Storm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/188_Destination.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/54_Into%20the%20Darkness%202.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/206_Carthage%203.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/233_Asgard.jpg)
