|
Publish as Ion Tt on
NA EU KR SEA
By Timetwister22
v1.0
Playable: 120x152
Concept
+ Show Spoiler +I wanted this map to allow for macro and late game play, while giving plenty of opportunity to harass.
The interesting take on the natural is the most notable feature of the map. While the base and mineral line is on the high ground, the player must defend the low ground to be able to mine. The choke on the low ground is as wide as an average natural choke, yet the backdoor is quite wide. If the low ground is lost, the player will most likely lose mining ability at the natural, but not the base.
The other bases were designed with aggression in mind as well, so harassment can continue into the late game.
This map has no Xel'Naga watchtowers.
Tileset
+ Show Spoiler +
Ulaan Dirt
Ulaan Grunge
Shakuras Sand Dark
Avernus Small Tiles
Ulaan Dirt Cracked
Korhal Platform Tiles
Zhakul'Das Organic Cliffs
Korhal Platform Manmade Cliff
Zhakul'Das Lighting - slightly altered in increase brightness.
Aesthetic Shots
+ Show Spoiler +
Change Log
+ Show Spoiler + V0.x Minor aesthetic bug updates. V1.0 -Fixed many bugs where units were able to blink or be dropped in unintended areas. -Fixed areas where units would get stuck via blink/cliff walking -Made the map look slightly nicer on low settings V1.1 - + Show Spoiler +-Changed large diagonal rocks to collapse rocks. This will have that third path initially open, so Zerg can more easily take a quick third. Yet, the path can still be closed to secure the low ground or cut of forces from third.
As always, feedback is more than welcome 
|
Canada13410 Posts
NVM about uploads, the res is too high for me to use staff uploads for it.
- Other than that cool looking map.
I wonder if the low to high ground nat thing would be problematic for cannon rushes similar to what happened on Akilon later in its life PvZ. But then again the ramp is closer to the low ground on this map so it might not be as hard to hold as it was on akilon, which eventually became easier. Though akilon was worse because it also denied a potential third base location.
|
Hm, this one actually looks interesting. I’d get rid of some of the bases in the centre and make it a bit wider (with some rock, of course). Other than that There might be a lot of in base proxing and such but every non-traditional map brings out some cheese…
|
I don't think canon rushing is possible because the mineral line seems to be pretty far from the natural ramp. The third base might be a bit too far though and makes it a bit too easy for Protoss and Terran to deny against a Zerg it seems. I think adding destructible rocks at the 3rd natural by the edge of the map would make it better?
This map reminds me of that other ladder map which had an in base natural and was terrible to play on..
|
Nice idea- I'm interested to see some games on it. The obvious play is to FE but there are so many spots for proxies because of the size of the main, so that'll help to counterbalance macro play. I especially like the 4th bases towards the center of the map- this was pretty common in SC:BW but completely fell out in SC2 and I have no idea why. It makes securing that extra base pretty advantageous and gives you basically a staging point while still protecting your income.
At this point, though, I'm excited to see basically anything that isn't an Akilon Wastes clone or a 4-player map with a ring of bases around the outside.
|
The. Aesthetics. Holy.
This is a beautiful map.
|
This map isnt very good, i'm affraid.
There is a big issue with the second base, in TvT, or TvZ, terran can push with tank and take a position behind the second base to deny mining. I think it would be too much efficient.
My other concern is about the third base, its soooo far away. There is no reason for that and too me its like sending a message to protoss player to just allin in PvZ and PvT and honnestly, who in this world want more protoss allin ?
I think you can fix those issues by changing the position of the second base inside the B1 and make a larger space (not a corridor i mean) between B2/B3 while put some rock on the second way to the third base (the path in the corner of the map), this way, protoss wouldnt be allowed to push the third base and block a simple path with 3 or 4 FF.
|
On February 11 2014 18:24 Hellblitz wrote:
This map isnt very good, i'm affraid.
There is a big issue with the second base, in TvT, or TvZ, terran can push with tank and take a position behind the second base to deny mining. I think it would be too much efficient.
My other concern is about the third base, its soooo far away. There is no reason for that and too me its like sending a message to protoss player to just allin in PvZ and PvT and honnestly, who in this world want more protoss allin ?
I think you can fix those issues by changing the position of the second base inside the B1 and make a larger space (not a corridor i mean) between B2/B3 while put some rock on the second way to the third base (the path in the corner of the map), this way, protoss wouldnt be allowed to push the third base and block a simple path with 3 or 4 FF.
If you consider that by the time you're on 2 bases and about to take a 3rd your army should be positioned in the area in front of your 2 initial bases, not at the top of your main ramp, then the 3rd really isn't that far away.
|
From a Zerg perspective i think that it would be pretty hard to take a third, either you'd need quite some creep spread to get the left one or you need units to destroy the rocks to the third. I'm not sure if it's maybe too hard to take it.
What i really like is the rocks to the main, which makes it much harder to ff the ramp for protoss and i guess.. that would achieve getting rid of a lot of the annoying warpgate-sentry harass.
|
On February 11 2014 18:52 Rasias wrote:
From a Zerg perspective i think that it would be pretty hard to take a third, either you'd need quite some creep spread to get the left one or you need units to destroy the rocks to the third. I'm not sure if it's maybe too hard to take it.
What i really like is the rocks to the main, which makes it much harder to ff the ramp for protoss and i guess.. that would achieve getting rid of a lot of the annoying warpgate-sentry harass.
Hm, I’m not sure why we don’t see them anymore but how about the rocks which block the minerals but not the base placement? That should make things a bit more even.
|
This most beautiful map I've ever seen.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Epic design. But I think, textures will be simplified a bit, like on yeonsu.
|
My eyes hurt.
don't get me wrong though. Beautiful, cool, amazing attention to detail. I just find it hard to follow.
I like the idea behind the natural too. Nice work!
|
I like the natural a lot because you set up a situation where players need to move down their main ramp to defend it. Then you have a fairly normal sized choke to defend plus a backdoor with rocks. The backdoor here doesn't create the problems that many other backdoors have created on maps. I would also be a bit concerned about zerg taking a fast 3rd but I don't think creep spread is an issue given that it looks like the natural hatchery will spread some creep down the ramp to the low ground on its own. You can just put a tumor down in the main and swing it around towards the closer third. The rocks are the real obstacle to defending it.
I would advocate reducing the resource density in the middle of the map by moving the 3oclock base closer to a 2oclock postion (and the 9oclock closer to 8oclock). Nice aesthetics work for sure.
|
On February 11 2014 23:58 TheFish7 wrote:
I like the natural a lot because you set up a situation where players need to move down their main ramp to defend it. Then you have a fairly normal sized choke to defend plus a backdoor with rocks. The backdoor here doesn't create the problems that many other backdoors have created on maps. I would also be a bit concerned about zerg taking a fast 3rd but I don't think creep spread is an issue given that it looks like the natural hatchery will spread some creep down the ramp to the low ground on its own. You can just put a tumor down in the main and swing it around towards the closer third. The rocks are the real obstacle to defending it.
I would advocate reducing the resource density in the middle of the map by moving the 3oclock base closer to a 2oclock postion (and the 9oclock closer to 8oclock). Nice aesthetics work for sure.
Thank you. Your point about resource density was entirely intentional on my part. I didn't want an easy split map scenario. Instead I wanted that tense harass aggression to be able to continue into the late game. By forcing players to spread out and push them toward one another, aggression should follow.
|
On February 11 2014 23:58 TheFish7 wrote:
I don't think creep spread is an issue given that it looks like the natural hatchery will spread some creep down the ramp to the low ground on its own. You can just put a tumor down in the main and swing it around towards the closer third. The rocks are the real obstacle to defending it.
I just tested it, the creep reaches to the edges of the natural cliff and barely to the ramp.
I think you'd have to either destroy the rocks and get the closer third, or you take the further one (4 creep tumors to connect). It seems, like a later 3rd is kind of necessary for zerg on this map.
|
On February 12 2014 00:39 Rasias wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2014 23:58 TheFish7 wrote:
I don't think creep spread is an issue given that it looks like the natural hatchery will spread some creep down the ramp to the low ground on its own. You can just put a tumor down in the main and swing it around towards the closer third. The rocks are the real obstacle to defending it.
I just tested it, the creep reaches to the edges of the natural cliff and barely to the ramp. I think you'd have to either destroy the rocks and get the closer third, or you take the further one (4 creep tumors to connect). It seems, like a later 3rd is kind of necessary for zerg on this map.
That forces Zerg to be more aggressive then. Good way for diversified matches?
|
On February 12 2014 01:52 geokilla wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 00:39 Rasias wrote:On February 11 2014 23:58 TheFish7 wrote:
I don't think creep spread is an issue given that it looks like the natural hatchery will spread some creep down the ramp to the low ground on its own. You can just put a tumor down in the main and swing it around towards the closer third. The rocks are the real obstacle to defending it.
I just tested it, the creep reaches to the edges of the natural cliff and barely to the ramp. I think you'd have to either destroy the rocks and get the closer third, or you take the further one (4 creep tumors to connect). It seems, like a later 3rd is kind of necessary for zerg on this map. That forces Zerg to be more aggressive then. Good way for diversified matches?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad that way, but i think it should be considered 
|
On February 12 2014 01:52 geokilla wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 00:39 Rasias wrote:On February 11 2014 23:58 TheFish7 wrote:
I don't think creep spread is an issue given that it looks like the natural hatchery will spread some creep down the ramp to the low ground on its own. You can just put a tumor down in the main and swing it around towards the closer third. The rocks are the real obstacle to defending it.
I just tested it, the creep reaches to the edges of the natural cliff and barely to the ramp. I think you'd have to either destroy the rocks and get the closer third, or you take the further one (4 creep tumors to connect). It seems, like a later 3rd is kind of necessary for zerg on this map. That forces Zerg to be more aggressive then. Good way for diversified matches?
Aggression you say? Almost seems intentional with the map concept ^^
|
omg Time twister this map is freaking gorgeous! My only plea is that if the third proves to be too hard fix it! even if it breaks the map's concept a bit, don't let this map become a new Phantasm.
|
10/10 for the map design, you put so much time into this map, and it very easy to see, and maybe even a future competition map,
I would not be suprised to see this in tournaments in the future, or on the ladder, there may be some slight modifications needed, related to balance, but no way to find out.. cause I am to busy looking at the map to actually go and play it 
|
So how about the changing the 3rd - rather than blocking the path just have mineral blocking rocks like on Testbug?
|
The main-natural design is one of the most creative I've seen in a while. In-base naturals are nothing new, but most of the time are designed in a straightforward way with each expansion having their own clear "area", while here both the main and natural are blended together into the same area.
Most maps with in-base expansions tend to lean towards macro games, since the natural is easy to expand to and defend. Here, that isn't the case. The mineral line is right on the edge of a direct path to your base. This makes it so that the opposing army doesn't have to split forces to harass your natural, they can straight up harass it with their main force.
On February 11 2014 23:58 TheFish7 wrote:
I like the natural a lot because you set up a situation where players need to move down their main ramp to defend it.
The nail has been hit on the head. This is an interesting feature. To add to its vulnerability, the main-nat ramp is 3x once the rocks go down. The natural is deceptively difficult to defend. It looks like an in-base expansion, but plays out like a regular natural expansion. So cool dude!
I honestly don't really know what to think of the rest of the layout. The expansions are ambiguous and spread out, yet there are many choke points as well. I can't really comment on much else.
|
As far as the third, I think it's fine as is for the time being until I get some games on it. The rocks between the nat low ground and the third will probably remain, as the current design of the natural relies on them. If the third becomes too hard for any race, I'll probably make choke size/distance adjustments.
|
This is painful to look at, ow. I keep trying. Like it's cool for sure, but just seems unplayable (aesthetically). But that's not the biggest problem for a map to have, just putting my vote in.
The forward nat choke is pretty rough for any tight build orders, being so far. But it will make for interesting games for sure. I really think you'd see people put their infrastructure on the lowground to make a 2nd wall/simcity in case the rocks are broken to help defend the nat cliff. It's funny to me that this map of all things could be the first successful map to promote building outside the main.
I agree with fish that the 3oclock should be more towards 2oclock. I understand the motivation to keep it far and I assumed this was the intention, but I think it's going to force a basetradey mapsplit, not the harass / poke / multiprong you're looking for. In fact, I think the best thing for this map would be embrace the awkwardness of that area and make them gold bases so they function more the way you want. Or overhaul that area (possibly removing a pathway and creating a cliff vulnerability instead).
The focus of the map will be the unique nat design, so I really don't think it's a huge problem overall. Would like to see this map get used! Below I try and explain why the 2/3oclock area is awkward / not contributing to the map the way I think it's intended to.
+ Show Spoiler [long] +
If a player takes it as a 4th, they need their army to defend it because it's an open-face base location, and the army will need to camp there without constant knowledge of opponent's movements, since the enemy reinforce with the rocks down is so short and the defender travel path from center of mass is long and narrow. In the situation both players expand this way, it creates a very unstable basetrade favored positioning. It's like if your 4th on Daybreak was the base outside their main by air.
If you want to avoid this, you break the rocks to take the righthand 4th, which leads much more naturally to a 5th base anyway (the 3oclock, maybe the center base in some cases). Now you have a much more stable situation where the better player can make better movements than their opponent without being forced into a trade scenario (due to travel distances). This also brings the middle into play nicely. However the problem reemerges at the 5th base, because it bring you so close again (to the opponent's 3rd) and a defensive stance from both players results in a trade scenario again.
These issues are especially bad for zerg because the map doesn't offer a viable secondary location to put an alternate base site, which can be very important in a tight game where they have to sacrifice one of the two recent expansions because they'd be gg to engaging a timing.
Pushing the 3oclock to 2oclock alleviates many of the problems due to short distance and preserves it main vulnerability as an open-facing base, and also maintains the superior defensive position of forward army placement without mandating it. Because of the clever design of the 3rd base's back entrance (which I love), it wouldn't even make it much worse when they belong to opposing players. Redesigning the pathways here could help it along even more.
|
The 3 o'clock is the intended fourths for player A, while the 2 o'clock are intended fifths/sixths for player B. I want the players to progressively take control of the middle of the map, and eventually take the base there. By forcing armies that close to one another, you will not see base trades. The armies simply will be able to get I to position to defend one another too easily. Instead, you'll see pokes and harass, especially with the little path that goes through the central bases. The 2 and 3 o'clock are not intended to be taken by the same player.
However, I should add that when both players are on four bases, this is when bases trades are most likely to happen since this is when armies are furthest.
As for tthe aesthetics, let's just say it's super shinny in the pictures. After pictures were taken, I dropped the bloom, gamma, "glory settings", and saturation by just a bit to make it playable in game. Not to say it looks entirely different, just less strain on the eyes. Just had to make it look good for public view since I posted it on reddit.
|
Map has been updated to version 1.0. The update includes various bug fixes, and some minor aesthetic changes.
|
I really like it, but the textures look waay too busy in the corner bases
|
|
|
Update to V1.2
Changed large diagonal rocks to collapse rocks. This will have that third path initially open, so Zerg can more easily take a quick third. Yet, the path can still be closed to secure the low ground or cut of forces from third.
|
Pretty!
I like the inbase natural design, could make for some interesting plays!
|
Cool update, not as good as the Testbug style of mineral block but better than before
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Can you simplify textures a bit? Seems like same problem as on early versions of Yeonsu - nice map but textures are hard to fight on except if there is a creep everywhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0VVny3H.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Qotl3RJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZWJTfKv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k4juERA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oC2zroi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wJgRtdL.jpg)
