|
ESV Shrieking Breezev1.1Created by: Gfire Published on: [AM] [EU] [SEA] [KR]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/g5E96sR.jpg)
This map is my revisit to the concept of a main with two ramps, specifically on a 4p map. The use of rock towers is the main new idea here, of course having not existed before HotS. Beyond that it's fairly straightforward. Gameplay has proven to be harass-oriented in macro games.
Map Details:
Map size: 152*152
Main to Main distance: 48 (close) 83 (cross)
Natural to Natural distance: 49 (close) 65 (cross same side) 74 (cross opposite)
Close Ups:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler [Changelog] +
1.1 - removed the left and right large rocks to the middle platform.
|
Is it possible to make the map crossless? I think having only close spawns possible would be good for this map.
|
On December 05 2013 18:13 moskonia wrote:
Is it possible to make the map crossless? I think having only close spawns possible would be good for this map.
Then it may as well be a 2p map.
I like it how it is. With close spawns, you've essentially got one ramp, unless they send units all the way around to attack the other ramp. With cross, you've got two ramps, which makes rushes stronger to counteract the fact that the rush distance is farther. Cross spawns play out similarly but differently than close spawns, and that's one of the things I like most about this map.
|
On December 05 2013 18:25 skdeimos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 18:13 moskonia wrote:
Is it possible to make the map crossless? I think having only close spawns possible would be good for this map. Then it may as well be a 2p map. I like it how it is. With close spawns, you've essentially got one ramp, unless they send units all the way around to attack the other ramp. With cross, you've got two ramps, which makes rushes stronger to counteract the fact that the rush distance is farther. Cross spawns play out similarly but differently than close spawns, and that's one of the things I like most about this map.
To be fair, it'd be more like a 3p map with cross disabled, but I don't see a great reason to do this either. The scouting would be the same. It is, in fact, less wonky with all spawns.
|
I really like this 2 natural thing on this map. I had the same idea once but didn't continue the map. But my idea was a little different:
U have 2 naturals. But taking an expo is part of a decision making. One natural has more gas, the other more minerals. The ratio isn't important right now. But I think u get the idea. I was not sure if this is good or could be abused. However after seeing this map I thought it would be fitting to share my thoughts.
|
I don't really think the rocks in the middle are necessary. I don't think they add much to the map.
|
On December 06 2013 02:15 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 18:25 skdeimos wrote:On December 05 2013 18:13 moskonia wrote:
Is it possible to make the map crossless? I think having only close spawns possible would be good for this map. Then it may as well be a 2p map. I like it how it is. With close spawns, you've essentially got one ramp, unless they send units all the way around to attack the other ramp. With cross, you've got two ramps, which makes rushes stronger to counteract the fact that the rush distance is farther. Cross spawns play out similarly but differently than close spawns, and that's one of the things I like most about this map. To be fair, it'd be more like a 3p map with cross disabled, but I don't see a great reason to do this either. The scouting would be the same. It is, in fact, less wonky with all spawns.
Actually, no, it'd be exactly like a 2p map. Not a 3p map. Think about it. No matter where you spawn, your opponent is always close to you. Vertical and horizontal spawns are the exact same. Geometrically speaking, every possible spawn with cross disabled is just a permutation over flips and rotations of (that is to say, it's just a flip and/or rotation of) of every other possible spawn with cross disabled.
It'd essentially be a 2p map that happens to occasionally spawn with the entire map rotated 90 degrees or flipped occasionally. But geometrically they'd all be the same.
|
On December 06 2013 03:40 lorestarcraft wrote:
I don't really think the rocks in the middle are necessary. I don't think they add much to the map.
That's kinda the entire point of the map though. The reason this map works with two main ramps is that the bounce distance between the two main ramps is so ridiculously long. If you take out those rocks in the centre, the bounce distance is shorter, and it isn't forced to go though a tiny choke.
|
On December 06 2013 04:14 skdeimos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 02:15 EatThePath wrote:On December 05 2013 18:25 skdeimos wrote:On December 05 2013 18:13 moskonia wrote:
Is it possible to make the map crossless? I think having only close spawns possible would be good for this map. Then it may as well be a 2p map. I like it how it is. With close spawns, you've essentially got one ramp, unless they send units all the way around to attack the other ramp. With cross, you've got two ramps, which makes rushes stronger to counteract the fact that the rush distance is farther. Cross spawns play out similarly but differently than close spawns, and that's one of the things I like most about this map. To be fair, it'd be more like a 3p map with cross disabled, but I don't see a great reason to do this either. The scouting would be the same. It is, in fact, less wonky with all spawns. Actually, no, it'd be exactly like a 2p map. Not a 3p map. Think about it. No matter where you spawn, your opponent is always close to you. Vertical and horizontal spawns are the exact same. Geometrically speaking, every possible spawn with cross disabled is just a permutation over flips and rotations of (that is to say, it's just a flip and/or rotation of) of every other possible spawn with cross disabled. It'd essentially be a 2p map that happens to occasionally spawn with the entire map rotated 90 degrees or flipped occasionally. But geometrically they'd all be the same.
With regard to initial worker scouting..??
|
Huh. I guess you're entirely right. My apologies if I came off as being rude.
|
My vote for the 3rd TLMC. Too bad it didn't win 
|
I wouldn't mind all the center rocks being gone. It opens up an attack path, and it's still a long ways around from natural to natural with the center open, and lets the game flow more.
However, maybe you could consider partially blocking those paths with rocks - kinda like on Cloud Kingdom. Use the rocks to make the travel time slightly longer and create a choke, and quicker wider path when destroyed.
Maybe even consider putting a 1FF wide ramp clockwise of each of the rocks at the center, on the lil cliff space there. All up to you though.
And anyways, great new concept, looking forward to playing sometime.
|
I really love this map. I had a crack at a 4spawn with 2 ramps like this not long ago and failed miserably. In terms of layout design, you couldn't have executed a map with double main ramps better imo. I pray everyday that the ladder adopts fresh maps like this.
One thing though; The rock towers. It feels like they take away from the map concept more than provide, but perhaps the map is broken without them and i'm just a scrub  Will definitely play this. oh, and the center rocks need to stay. It makes this map concept so much more unique and beautiful, and the spawns dynamic.
|
I feel that the rocks in the mid make the map's concept stronger. It would probably be fine without them but I think it's more extreme this way, and I prefer the more extreme so long as it's not broken, at least in this case.
While the rock towers do detract from the double ramps into the main, this map was at no point in time just "a map with two ramps to the main" but rather began as a whole concept. It was from from the beginning "a map with two ramps to the main and rock towers in front of the two naturals" and I only made the map because I thought of putting the two together. So for this reason I don't think I would ever consider removing them, but I wouldn't mind seeing a map like that sometime.
|
I think the rocks in the center are very important to the map. It allows the player to take the "away" natural with almost the usual safety, even the safety of a backdoor base, and then go out onto the lowground to continue expanding away without having to get map control. You just need to keep watching for army movements. Requiring the attacker to break two rocks clearly delineates the pace/timings of the game from the opening phase with linear tussles, and the "middle is open", well, midgame phase. There are still plenty of ways to pressure greedy players early on with air/cliff/blink based strategies.
In my opinion, not nearly enough maps have this excellent visceral feeling of distinct parts of the game. Arkanoid exemplified this in the extreme.
On December 06 2013 13:40 skdeimos wrote:
Huh. I guess you're entirely right. My apologies if I came off as being rude.
No worries. :D
|
Fair enough. great response. I guess the only reason i say this is because ;I cant think of a way of making a double open natural map, without copying this layout almost exactly.
|
Well it can be hard to think of new ways of doing things right away. If you keep the idea around you could always think of something later and then do something with it.
For this... Keeping with a 4p map it would be a challenge to make it really different than this. Variations on the rocks would be a start. You could also make it something where the symmetry is more significant, either reflected or rotational. If it's reflected it wouldn't have to be a square either, and that could give you some new parameters to work with. Or maybe something like LT/metal style symmetry if you could make that work somehow? You could mess around with other crazy backdoor features or golds as other bases or outsider-style side paths.
|
On December 07 2013 04:31 Gfire wrote:
Well it can be hard to think of new ways of doing things right away. If you keep the idea around you could always think of something later and then do something with it.
For this... Keeping with a 4p map it would be a challenge to make it really different than this. Variations on the rocks would be a start. You could also make it something where the symmetry is more significant, either reflected or rotational. If it's reflected it wouldn't have to be a square either, and that could give you some new parameters to work with. Or maybe something like LT/metal style symmetry if you could make that work somehow? You could mess around with other crazy backdoor features or golds as other bases or outsider-style side paths.
So, like, removing the left/right rocks from the middle?
Dat spawn variance, dood.
|
On December 07 2013 18:21 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 04:31 Gfire wrote:
Well it can be hard to think of new ways of doing things right away. If you keep the idea around you could always think of something later and then do something with it.
For this... Keeping with a 4p map it would be a challenge to make it really different than this. Variations on the rocks would be a start. You could also make it something where the symmetry is more significant, either reflected or rotational. If it's reflected it wouldn't have to be a square either, and that could give you some new parameters to work with. Or maybe something like LT/metal style symmetry if you could make that work somehow? You could mess around with other crazy backdoor features or golds as other bases or outsider-style side paths. So, like, removing the left/right rocks from the middle? Dat spawn variance, dood.
Oh my god.
I am not even sure if you were joking, but this would be fucking brilliant.
I've considered doing stuff like this with some of my 4p rotational maps, like orienting rocks in a certain way such that horizontal vs vertical spawns were similar but slightly different, but with rotation maps it throws off the symmetry in that certain horizontal spawns favor certain races (for example, in a ZvP, the Zerg prefers horizontal spawns with Protoss being CCW rather than horizontal with Protoss being CW, but in vertical spawns Zerg prefers the opposite) and I didn't really want to work through ensuring all the different possible spawn permutations were balanced.
But with a mirrored map like this one, your idea actually works! I would looooove to see this implemented.
|
Yeah, that's a good idea. I'll consider that. Anyone have any counterarguments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2E0ZH.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag7va.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B5pBv5l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7TdYxw2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YyoDQQY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jK68CNb.jpg)
