All the third expansions are on low ground, that is the first feature that really stands out to me. The gold base seems like a good place to hide a Stargate. The ramp to the main is very close to the ramp to the second. I feel like that might be conducive to zergling runbys
I don't think that the collabsible rock on the island will ever come to play. It's a nice touch, but probably completely useless. Nobody is going to drop there or waste time on mutas/banshees for that. Actually, for island expansions, if you can that the other player is aiming for them, it is better to let them start and then lose money on cancelling/losing buildings with the same army.
Also, the gold base in the middle doesn't seem to me to be a very good idea. It is to some extent acceptable to have a "middle" base as a point of contention, but making it gold I feel makes it too much of an advantage - once you hold it, you have essentially won the game (considering its strategic position also).
Stunning! - I love how different the games can play out depending on what expansions are taken. the XNT is also a really cool feature although i believe it might favor T a little too much because... Reapers, but who knows, maybe thats what T needs. Would absolutely love to see some high level games on this one!
On May 16 2014 15:06 opisska wrote: I don't think that the collabsible rock on the island will ever come to play. It's a nice touch, but probably completely useless. Nobody is going to drop there or waste time on mutas/banshees for that. Actually, for island expansions, if you can that the other player is aiming for them, it is better to let them start and then lose money on cancelling/losing buildings with the same army.
The value of the collapsible tower is that to safely take the island, you need to destroy the tower AND the rocks before you take it, because if you riskily take it otherwise, you run the risk of the other player destroying it and dealing enormous damage to your base instantly.
On May 16 2014 15:06 opisska wrote: I don't think that the collabsible rock on the island will ever come to play. It's a nice touch, but probably completely useless. Nobody is going to drop there or waste time on mutas/banshees for that. Actually, for island expansions, if you can that the other player is aiming for them, it is better to let them start and then lose money on cancelling/losing buildings with the same army.
The value of the collapsible tower is that to safely take the island, you need to destroy the tower AND the rocks before you take it, because if you riskily take it otherwise, you run the risk of the other player destroying it and dealing enormous damage to your base instantly.
A collapsable rock has 500hp (+3 armor) and deals 500 damage to anything under it. A CC/Nexus/hatch has 1500hp (+1 amor), you'll deal more damage by attacking the building directly than by attacking the collapsable rock. This collapsabl rocks only use is to block the expand but as opisska said, nobody is going to drop there or waste time on mutas/banshees for that.
Edit : When is blizzard going to give us some protoss themed destructible plates ?
That nat design seems painful for ZvZ and TvP at first glance. I really like the overall concept of the map, though. If the nat doesn't end up being a problem I'll give it 2 thumbs up.
Regarding the collapsible rocks i also don't think the rocks will see much play, the reason the rocks are there is to deny the base for your enemy, but since the rocks are so much into the island means that you must drop or move your air units/army into the island to take the rocks out, and i don't know how much is that worth specially since you could take that base yourself instead if you have a sizable air based army that can spare the time to take down the rocks
My idea for this issue is to rotate the island base 180º and leave the minerals more exposed so when the rocks collapse they collapse on top of the minerals like this + Show Spoiler +
that way the players can send a small squad to take down the rocks that that way negate not all but a part of the income in a more permanent fashion, you could also place both vespene geysers there instead so when the rocks collapse the vespene geysers of that island base disappear.
About the layout itself it's a nice standard map there are a couple of things that worry me tho the first one is the central path , there aren't ways to get good surrounds in that area which could be problematic, for this you could move the xel'naga to that small lowground, the one that has the huge protoss engine doodad, that would open the center of the path a bit leaving an area were surrounds can happen. Another possible issue is that central gold base, because of his spot in the map that base will most of the time be taken when one of the two players is very ahead of the other and b/c is a gold base it will only make that player be even more ahead, as a fix for that i see a couple options, first to just remove that base and make a couple pathways/bridges blocked with rocks, the second option is to change the amount of resources in that base to 6min/3g, we don't see much play with resources in other maps but this map has a chance to use a nonstandard amount in this base.
Oh also! about the name! It should be Dios Sol, remember that the grammar in spanish is inverted in comparison to english :b
The tower on the island is just an extra option for players, just like the gold base and the other corner base. If I happen to be using drops and don't want the island myself, I can send one just to knock the tower down, and now I know you won't be taking it. If it doesn't end up doing anything, oh well who cares. The map is designed to let you do pretty much whatever you want.
And the name is a reference, it comes from the same place as my TL name, screw grammar.
I love pretty much all of Jacky's maps, each of them has had some noticeable influence on my maps in one way or another.
For the island, I don't want anything gimmicky like a mineral block or gas disappearing, I just want a simple block, which I don't think is as useless as everyone is saying. I'ma just leave it as is.
This map is pretty awesome actually. I think it's sweet because most likely zerg will expand to the north side because it's much more open where as protoss/terran will expand to the south because it's a lot more choked off.
With that said, the bottom might be too choked off with all the ramps and such that it might be too strong against a zerg. Yes, if they are expanding to the south and constantly pushing to the south they could take the gold base in the north, but I really don't think it'll help as much since it's extremely close to the enemy natural.
I also dislike how seperated the northern and southern sections are. There are only single paths to each section so it does seem a little dull. I almost think, adding "bridges" where uvantak suggested but flipping the gold base 180 degrees would make it much better imo. Then it would kind of connect the southern and northern sections together more and thus create better flow.
Aesthetics look very simple yet it looks extremely well done. Props on that! Although, come on, add some more protoss or desert doodads yo! That 4th picture on the "pretty" section is...bleh! More forcefield walls, add some protoss decals to the high ground, maybe some blue flames! ehhh???
Either way, sick map bud. Well done! I know AlloyE is newly formed but this is definitely the best map produced from you guys.
I bet that last sentence just got Timetwister jealous looool <3
edit: Honestly, it's maps like this that really make me want to open the sc2 map editor and create something new because looking at this map just gets me inspired. Good job bud!
I like how you've managed to make blink awkward despite having a very exposed main cliff - I'll definitely be plagiarizing using similar ideas in future maps.
the map has lots of style and a nicestraight forward layout. yet i am not sure, if it is not a tad bit too straight forward.
one point that was not discussed so far is that there are mainly three lanes that cut the map in section and that connect the two sides. along these paths the bases are lined up. only two of these three lanes connect at one single point near the XWT. i find it really interesting, yet problematic. it is in or out, do or die. there is no flanking or multi pronged attacks except by air and super strange "positioning" or rather timing when to move into the choke. while the visuals are nice and clean, that layout might be too simplified or restricted. I am really afraid it narrows down the spectrum of play styles too much.
edit: maybe a diagram could help me to understand what kind of positioning you had in mind? e.g. when on four or five bases?
On May 29 2014 07:04 Samro225am wrote: the map has lots of style and a nicestraight forward layout. yet i am not sure, if it is not a tad bit too straight forward.
one point that was not discussed so far is that there are mainly three lanes that cut the map in section and that connect the two sides. along these paths the bases are lined up. only two of these three lanes connect at one single point near the XWT. i find it really interesting, yet problematic. it is in or out, do or die. there is no flanking or multi pronged attacks except by air and super strange "positioning" or rather timing when to move into the choke. while the visuals are nice and clean, that layout might be too simplified or restricted. I am really afraid it narrows down the spectrum of play styles too much.
edit: maybe a diagram could help me to understand what kind of positioning you had in mind? e.g. when on four or five bases?
I heavily disagree with the assessments made here. What I particularly love about this map is how its design forces better planning and positioning to successfully perform flanks and multi-pronged attacks. It's a concept that used to matter in StarCraft, but got lost along the way due to more open map designs that reactively allow anyone to spread out their army or retreat in a different direction, making the game more about who has more money than who uses their units better.
Some of my fondest memories of SC2 come from 2011. I specifically remember my Shattered Temple TvP mid game revolved around baiting my opponent with only half my army so the second half could cut off his escape path back to his base. Protoss would be caught performing a last stand on the watch tower with their 2 colossus timing (popular at the time) completely surrounded. Instantly won many games like that.
When you look at the map designs of the current ladder pool, the only two maps where real flanking tactics can even be performed (Habitation Station and Merry-Go-Round) happen to be my favourite maps. Sol Dios isn't about brainless macro like Frost or Alterzim Stronghold, and in my opinion makes it a far superior StarCraft map.
On May 29 2014 07:04 Samro225am wrote: the map has lots of style and a nicestraight forward layout. yet i am not sure, if it is not a tad bit too straight forward.
one point that was not discussed so far is that there are mainly three lanes that cut the map in section and that connect the two sides. along these paths the bases are lined up. only two of these three lanes connect at one single point near the XWT. i find it really interesting, yet problematic. it is in or out, do or die. there is no flanking or multi pronged attacks except by air and super strange "positioning" or rather timing when to move into the choke. while the visuals are nice and clean, that layout might be too simplified or restricted. I am really afraid it narrows down the spectrum of play styles too much.
edit: maybe a diagram could help me to understand what kind of positioning you had in mind? e.g. when on four or five bases?
I heavily disagree with the assessments made here. What I particularly love about this map is how its design forces better planning and positioning to successfully perform flanks and multi-pronged attacks. It's a concept that used to matter in StarCraft, but got lost along the way due to more open map designs that reactively allow anyone to spread out their army or retreat in a different direction, making the game more about who has more money than who uses their units better.
Some of my fondest memories of SC2 come from 2011. I specifically remember my Shattered Temple TvP mid game revolved around baiting my opponent with only half my army so the second half could cut off his escape path back to his base. Protoss would be caught performing a last stand on the watch tower with their 2 colossus timing (popular at the time) completely surrounded. Instantly won many games like that.
When you look at the map designs of the current ladder pool, the only two maps where real flanking tactics can even be performed (Habitation Station and Merry-Go-Round) happen to be my favourite maps. Sol Dios isn't about brainless macro like Frost or Alterzim Stronghold, and in my opinion makes it a far superior StarCraft map.
When there is not one crossing of any path on one side of the map (NW) and only one connection between the other two paths (SE) in the middle of the map movement is just too restricted.
For an actual flank you need to go at least half way across the map? No way you get behind your opponent's back like what you describe.
I think uvantak talks about the same design issue when he says that the gold is one way and winner wins more and that additional paths would help indeed.
Maybe you want to draw that diagram for me. PvZ 4 against 5bases scenario? Or even less bases really.
Don't get me wrong I totally see what many people like in the map design yet I wanted to ask if anyone else fears movement is too restricted by that 3 lane design.
On May 29 2014 07:04 Samro225am wrote: the map has lots of style and a nicestraight forward layout. yet i am not sure, if it is not a tad bit too straight forward.
one point that was not discussed so far is that there are mainly three lanes that cut the map in section and that connect the two sides. along these paths the bases are lined up. only two of these three lanes connect at one single point near the XWT. i find it really interesting, yet problematic. it is in or out, do or die. there is no flanking or multi pronged attacks except by air and super strange "positioning" or rather timing when to move into the choke. while the visuals are nice and clean, that layout might be too simplified or restricted. I am really afraid it narrows down the spectrum of play styles too much.
edit: maybe a diagram could help me to understand what kind of positioning you had in mind? e.g. when on four or five bases?
I heavily disagree with the assessments made here. What I particularly love about this map is how its design forces better planning and positioning to successfully perform flanks and multi-pronged attacks. It's a concept that used to matter in StarCraft, but got lost along the way due to more open map designs that reactively allow anyone to spread out their army or retreat in a different direction, making the game more about who has more money than who uses their units better.
Some of my fondest memories of SC2 come from 2011. I specifically remember my Shattered Temple TvP mid game revolved around baiting my opponent with only half my army so the second half could cut off his escape path back to his base. Protoss would be caught performing a last stand on the watch tower with their 2 colossus timing (popular at the time) completely surrounded. Instantly won many games like that.
When you look at the map designs of the current ladder pool, the only two maps where real flanking tactics can even be performed (Habitation Station and Merry-Go-Round) happen to be my favourite maps. Sol Dios isn't about brainless macro like Frost or Alterzim Stronghold, and in my opinion makes it a far superior StarCraft map.
When there is not one crossing of any path on one side of the map (NW) and only one connection between the other two paths (SE) in the middle of the map movement is just too restricted.
For an actual flank you need to go at least half way across the map? No way you get behind your opponent's back like what you describe.
I think uvantak talks about the same design issue when he says that the gold is one way and winner wins more and that additional paths would help indeed.
Maybe you want to draw that diagram for me. PvZ 4 against 5bases scenario? Or even less bases really.
Don't get me wrong I totally see what many people like in the map design yet I wanted to ask if anyone else fears movement is too restricted by that 3 lane design.
Here is a defensive flank tactic. By setting up your defence appropriately, you can trick your opponent into overextending an attack and crush it.
Here is the opposite; an offensive flank. Tricking your opponent into thinking you overextended, then springing the trap by slipping the rest of your army in behind, cutting off their safety path back to their base.
Bottom-mid, baiting your opponent into the corridor, then shutting out any hope for escape.
Top-mid, defensive flank. Baiting the opponent in while the remainder of your forces loop around, trapping and surrounding them.
Top-mid, same concept but offensive. Cutting off their escape after they overextend into the middle of the map.
Long story short, this map design encourages splitting up the army into smaller chunks, while punishing death balls. Furthermore, there are enough paths to strike in multiple locations against 4+ bases. As far as the concern over corridors, there's this amazing concept called scouting. Controlling multiple squads around the map also opens opportunities against opposing players who like to group everything together, as they can't just beeline back to defend if they overextend themselves.
Flanking, tactical positioning and squad-based play! What more could you ask for?
all things you praise are possible on most good maps. for example in this MotM these things all are totally possible. it is not something that makes this map stand out.
actually i think this map does not do what you try to make us believe. only your last two images define a situation i can imagine in sc2. as much as i would love to see these split army scenarios happen, they are very unrealistic here and in the way described in the diagrams.
1. just do me a favor and add the path that the flanking army needs to take before they could engage (that is why only the two last images are valid imho) - the distances are huge where your split up forces cannot be spotted or would be destroyed before they do anything!
2. your flanks always come from the high round, too. while you might have other means to see from low ground in these mid game scenarios - and hg does not mean so much anyway - i have to note that all your flanks come from lg.
3. too much death-balling in this game and your flanks would be too damn risky to set up and tricky to execute without getting spotted far too early. scouting as you pointed out to me earlier.
i do not want to take anything away from this nice small map, it is just not that outstanding and i have to say i do not follow your argumentation at all. try to paint these diagrams on the other motm finalists. i am really interested in these
On May 29 2014 21:37 Samro225am wrote: all things you praise are possible on most good maps. for example in this MotM these things all are totally possible. it is not something that makes this map stand out.
actually i think this map does not do what you try to make us believe. only your last two images define a situation i can imagine in sc2. as much as i would love to see these split army scenarios happen, they are very unrealistic here and in the way described in the diagrams.
1. just do me a favor and add the path that the flanking army needs to take before they could engage (that is why only the two last images are valid imho) - the distances are huge where your split up forces cannot be spotted or would be destroyed before they do anything!
2. your flanks always come from the high round, too. while you might have other means to see from low ground in these mid game scenarios - and hg does not mean so much anyway - i have to note that all your flanks come from lg.
3. too much death-balling in this game and your flanks would be too damn risky to set up and tricky to execute without getting spotted far too early. scouting as you pointed out to me earlier.
i do not want to take anything away from this nice small map, it is just not that outstanding and i have to say i do not follow your argumentation at all. try to paint these diagrams on the other motm finalists. i am really interested in these
1. Seriously, why are you having such a difficult time understanding those diagrams, especially with the accompanying paragraphs? "Sick Baits" refers to the portion of the army that backs up and entices the opponent's army to move forward (which is indicated by the red arrow). For the first one, you'd be retreating into your nat while the opponent's army moves toward it. The flank options are where the second and/or third portions of your army are; all you need to do is attack-move to engage.
2. So? In those situations, you also have a squad already on the high ground as well, baiting the opponent's army into a disadvantageous position. Is there some particular concern here you're wanting to address?
3. Risky how? You mean if you mess up badly and engage with only half your army? That's not flanking, that's playing bad. Executing a flank is not tricky at all. 1a-2a-3a.
I really don't understand how you cannot follow what I'm saying, but I can immediately tell you're not a Terran player because of it. Low-level Protoss and Zergs tend to be more comfortable keeping their army in a single ball. These diagrams aren't necessary for people who know how to control their armies and force favourable engagements; if I get the urge to write a tutorial about basic flanking and army engagements in SC2, I'll consider doing more. I will say, however, that Silt and Coriolis are not very good for these kind of flanking tactics. Samsara is okay-ish. Sol Dios and Nimbus are best for it.
I'll let you contemplate why that is. If you need help figuring it out, feel free to PM me about it. No need to derail the map thread with a more abstract discussion about army movement and positioning.
On May 29 2014 21:37 Samro225am wrote: all things you praise are possible on most good maps. for example in this MotM these things all are totally possible. it is not something that makes this map stand out.
actually i think this map does not do what you try to make us believe. only your last two images define a situation i can imagine in sc2. as much as i would love to see these split army scenarios happen, they are very unrealistic here and in the way described in the diagrams.
1. just do me a favor and add the path that the flanking army needs to take before they could engage (that is why only the two last images are valid imho) - the distances are huge where your split up forces cannot be spotted or would be destroyed before they do anything!
2. your flanks always come from the high round, too. while you might have other means to see from low ground in these mid game scenarios - and hg does not mean so much anyway - i have to note that all your flanks come from lg.
3. too much death-balling in this game and your flanks would be too damn risky to set up and tricky to execute without getting spotted far too early. scouting as you pointed out to me earlier.
i do not want to take anything away from this nice small map, it is just not that outstanding and i have to say i do not follow your argumentation at all. try to paint these diagrams on the other motm finalists. i am really interested in these
1. Seriously, why are you having such a difficult time understanding those diagrams, especially with the accompanying paragraphs? "Sick Baits" refers to the portion of the army that backs up and entices the opponent's army to move forward (which is indicated by the red arrow). For the first one, you'd be retreating into your nat while the opponent's army moves toward it. The flank options are where the second and/or third portions of your army are; all you need to do is attack-move to engage.
2. So? In those situations, you also have a squad already on the high ground as well, baiting the opponent's army into a disadvantageous position. Is there some particular concern here you're wanting to address?
3. Risky how? You mean if you mess up badly and engage with only half your army? That's not flanking, that's playing bad. Executing a flank is not tricky at all. 1a-2a-3a.
I really don't understand how you cannot follow what I'm saying, but I can immediately tell you're not a Terran player because of it. Low-level Protoss and Zergs tend to be more comfortable keeping their army in a single ball. These diagrams aren't necessary for people who know how to control their armies and force favourable engagements; if I get the urge to write a tutorial about basic flanking and army engagements in SC2, I'll consider doing more. I will say, however, that Silt and Coriolis are not very good for these kind of flanking tactics. Samsara is okay-ish. Sol Dios and Nimbus are best for it.
I'll let you contemplate why that is. If you need help figuring it out, feel free to PM me about it. No need to derail the map thread with a more abstract discussion about army movement and positioning.
it started out with a question if the 3-lane design is too restrictive and i come to the conclusion it is. i would be happy to hear more opinions from other people as you made your perspective quite clear. to be honest, i do not feel like continuing the discussion much longer, i guess most is said. yet i wonder why none else joins in?
1. possible on most maps. in a defensive situation difficult to pull of, because sc2 does not favor army splitting. as you write it is more difficult to play it right. so in case it goes wrong most maps allow you to switch paths and get in a better position if something goes wrong. not here because of 3-lane design.
2. nothing to address specifically, just pointing it out. in this you can be in a bad spot if your flanks do not move in 100% in synchrony. i just find it quite unforgiving. probably that is good, yet i think what you describe is a very specific case and many players will not play it like that.
3. it would be much easier and more frequent to do for everybody when the connectivity on the map was higher. so the map does not do this specifically good imho.
all things you praise are possible on most good maps. for example in this MotM these things all are totally possible. it is not something that makes this map stand out.
i think this still is true. your descriptions and your diagrams, what they show is possible on other maps as well. yet higher connectivity = easier flanking. it is just not reasonable to set up a flank starting at the other end of the map or in the middle of it (for the SE side at least)