Liquid`

EST 23:45
CET 05:45
KST 13:45

Forum Sidebar

Events/Features

[ASL21] Potential Map Candidates Gypsy to Korea Video Footage from 2005: The Birth of G2 in Spain BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/

Tourneys

[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] Non-Korean Championship - Starts Jan 10 Small VOD Thread 2.0 Azhi's Colosseum - Season 2

Strategy

Simple Questions, Simple Answers Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2 Game Theory for Starcraft Current Meta

Other Games

General Games

Nintendo Switch Thread Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason Awesome Games Done Quick 2026!

Dota 2

Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion

League of Legends

Heroes of the Storm

Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0

Hearthstone

Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set

TL Mafia

Vanilla Mini Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas

Blogs

Navigating the Risks and Rew…

TrAiDoS

My 2025 Magic: The Gathering…

DARKING

Life Update and thoughts.

FuDDx

How do archons sleep?

8882

James Bond movies ranking - pa…

Topin

[M] (2) Arcane Asteroid

Post a Reply

Fatam

1986 Posts

May 24 2015 01:19 GMT

Arcane Asteroid
by Fatam

148x128
Version 0.2
Published on All Servers
(search for "arcane" in custom games)

Overview:

Analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler +

*Rush distance time on the analyzer will be a bit off because of the ramps making it take longer.

[image loading]

Aesthetics:
+ Show Spoiler +

Mysterious arcane ramps slow movement speed by 50%!
+ Show Spoiler +

This map is a pretty recent creation (hence the 0.2) so all feedback / suggestions welcome. + Show Spoiler +

I almost removed the rocks at the 11/5 thirds in the most recent pass, but I think even with the ramp slow Protoss just barely needs them to expand in PvZ. Leaving the rocks there may have some negative effects on other matchups, though.

I'm probably going to upload a version without the ramp slow as well. Speaking of the ramp slow, 50% may be overkill. I played with it in-game a good bit but it's hard to tell exactly what the sweet spot is, it may be something more like 35-40%. I feel like any less than that and it doesn't do enough to justify its inclusion. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Rukis

United States252 Posts

May 24 2015 01:41 GMT

You should do 30% instead. Then start from there. instead of 50. 50 is kinda overkill especially in ZvZ where ramp positioning is very important.

IRoha

Korea (South)81 Posts

May 24 2015 01:46 GMT

look so beauty!

SidianTheBard

United States2474 Posts

May 24 2015 03:29 GMT

Somebody looks like they want into the next clanwar season. Hopefully more mappers map cool custom maps like this.

gj!

get rid of the forward ramp by the 5ths and this map will be amazing. You don't want a super straight path between nats, so remove that double wide ramp.

ilovegroov

357 Posts

May 24 2015 04:42 GMT

nice aesthetics. Every once in a while you come across something new here...

Fatam

1986 Posts

May 24 2015 18:58 GMT

On May 24 2015 10:41 Rukis wrote:
You should do 30% instead. Then start from there. instead of 50. 50 is kinda overkill especially in ZvZ where ramp positioning is very important.

Yeah. I've tested against the AI a lot (sad that we as mapmakers are often reduced to this) but there's only so much you can learn there (also, I don't play zerg). Does the ramp thing really hurt ZvZ? I would think if anything it makes it easier to go into a longer macro game because you don't have to worry quite as much about random roach or ling floods killing you.

On May 24 2015 12:29 SidianTheBard wrote:
Somebody looks like they want into the next clanwar season. Hopefully more mappers map cool custom maps like this.

I wouldn't mind it, although for clan wars I could probably go crazier. This is a pretty tame version of the original concept that I had a long time ago for a map jam (main with multiple entrances but the extra entrances had like -70% speed patches). As it happens there is extreme hate for main backdoors lately so I figured it was better to take a different route :-P

On May 24 2015 12:29 SidianTheBard wrote:
get rid of the forward ramp by the 5ths and this map will be amazing. You don't want a super straight path between nats, so remove that double wide ramp.

Do you think? I felt like the map was a little too turtley and not enough flow without them but maybe you're right

IeZaeL

Italy991 Posts

May 24 2015 19:03 GMT

damn i gotta step up my game if i want to remain the king of the shoutcraft maps

Fatam

1986 Posts

May 11 2016 07:32 GMT

can't edit OP anymore but new version of this that I'm submitting for TLMC7 (standard macro category). Published as 1.0.

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler +

no slows anymore on the ramps of course.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

May 12 2016 15:58 GMT

I like how the main ramp goes directly into the natural ramp, it's a style that we haven't seen as much but I think it works well in LotV whereas it was more difficult to pull off in WoL and HotS.

I do not like the gold expansions here. It looks like you just said "Whelp these are the furthest expansions and therefore most difficult to defend, so I guess I'll make them gold." Your map does not need to have gold expansions on it, I think it'll do fine without them.

The only real change I would suggest is rotating the expansions hugging the high ground with the rocks blocking one ramp about 45 degrees clockwise. Remove the unblocked ramp, then add two ramps; one pointed towards the current gold base, and the other pointed in the opposite direction. I don't know if I am describing this well enough or not, but I'm trying haha. I think this change would improve some map flow in that area.

Fatam

1986 Posts

May 12 2016 21:58 GMT

#10

Thanks for the comments.

Those bases didn't used to be gold, but with the addition of the backdoor 3rd I wanted to make that base a bit more appealing. I was worried it wouldn't get taken very often otherwise. I think it makes the backdoor 3rd more interesting, because maybe even zerg would think about expanding in that direction when they otherwise wouldn't.

Your changes are interesting, it would certainly make it much MORE of a macro map and less aggressive. It would also make the center path more of a commitment, which could be cool (you want to go the straightest path? you better really want to). The map is already submitted obviously, but in the future I'll take a look at those changes in the editor, thanks. Right now I'm taking a short break from the map editor