(click to enlarge)

Size: 156x156
Tileset: Shadow Corps Platform, Shakuras, Kaldir, Char Fortress, Skygierr
Spawn Positions: 5, 11
Base Count: 14
Servers: NA, EU, SEA, KR

Features/Explanation/Whatever:
+ Show Spoiler +

After the release of Epicloud, the reddit threads (#1) (#2) that came as a result of its creation prompted a response from Blizzard in a Community Update. This update spoke from the Dev team's perspective on how Island maps should/would be handled in the future.

This map has two narrow pathways that can be blocked by two separate Coolant Towers. These towers can be later broken to restore a ground based game. The third is accessible for Protoss players, but is blocked by unbuildable, destructible debris.

However, only your first four bases are available on your "island". Past that, your next three bases are clumped together on a completely separate island to the North East or South West. Due to the nature of this map, they are close together to centralize defenses and production.

This map is compact in ground space, heavily favoring air play (I mean it's an "island" map after all...), drops, and aggressive strategies such as Warp Ins, Nydus Worms, etc.

"This map is so narrow and makes it really hard to push through chokes."

Congratulations on basic observation skills.

Link to Reddit Discussion

Artsy / Detailed Pictures:
+ Show Spoiler +

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

April 25 2016 05:54 GMT

Intriguing map. I like the execution particularly the fact that ground based games are somewhat viable, but I don't feel it fully addresses the problems that are inherent to island maps.

Terran players and to a lesser extent zerg players can seize the islands faster than a Protoss player can, and more importantly defend and deny them more effectively. Trying to establish an expansion on the island as Protoss against an opponent that tries to deny them seems very difficult. Since three expansions are available by ground the best strategy for Protoss is probably to all-in the other player off those bases before the game goes long. So I'm not hugely optimistic as to this map's balance and playstyle diversity.

That being said if Blizzard wants to have island maps be a thing (which I personally feel is an excessively ambitious endeavour, but that's beside the point) this map seems like a good one to try out. It hits all the points they outlined, does a good job of balancing "ground" and "island" play, and trying out such a map is a necessity if we want to have an idea of what issues island maps face.

Also have you thought about putting something to deny very early island expos? I guess it isn't as necessary here as on most maps since there are three viable normal expansions, but most BW maps had them anyhow. Having a tiny mineral patch doesn't work in SCII (since you can just load up SCVs into the CC and drop them), but something like a neutral creep tumour might be worth considering.

Avexyli

United States702 Posts

April 25 2016 06:36 GMT

Well in this case, floating a CC, for example, to the island would take way too long.

I've seen a bunch of concerns regarding drops, but honestly, this map is meant to favor air and drop play. I expect protoss to open up with Phoenixes, Oracles and Warp Prisms, expecting quicker Ovie Speeds, Muta play, Viking and Liberator play.

But, I think my twitter statuses carefully state my stances on most of the concerns recently for all my work;

[image loading]

I would rather my map be fun to play on, than balanced (the opposite occured in Invader to a degree). I aim to appease the players who look for interesting new strategies, and I'm going to keep making maps this way to show Blizzard that fun needs to come before balance.

But, addressing the concerns of taking island bases. With changes in maps, meta and compositions, we will see faster or slower expansion timings. We will likely see these issues addressed in some manner. But it also means that players can't whine about their ladder ranking and MMR, and focus more on the fact that they aren't having fun - and not explicitly speaking about why it's not fun. You can have fun, and lose.

Also, I do believe some people have tried neutral creep tumors before, but it's nothing I've really been focused on.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

April 25 2016 07:03 GMT

I wholeheartedly agree with your mapmaking philosophy. I'm just worried that in this particular instance some match-ups are so lopsided as to prevent them from being fun. There isn't enough data to say for sure as of now of course.

fluidrone

France1478 Posts

April 25 2016 11:53 GMT

"I would rather my map be fun to play on, than balanced" <3

In a sense, that is the best way.., a map pool of unfair fun maps!

No map must not have gravely imbalanced features, just "slightly favoring certain match ups"..
the map pool on the whole can then be balanced.

Once we have only fun maps to play on.. then balance would arise quicker!

Xenotolerance

United States464 Posts

April 26 2016 17:51 GMT

Yeah I wish Blizzard shared that philosophy on balance and design. Fun a la starcraft first, balance second.

map is cool too

RoomOfMush

1296 Posts

April 27 2016 17:09 GMT

On April 25 2016 20:53 fluidrone wrote:

Show nested quote +

The problem with making "fun but possibly unbalanced" maps is that this needed to be happening before most of the casuals left. The people who are still playing SC2 are the die hard fans who like the way blizzard is doing things. Those who are unhappy have left.

InfCereal

Canada1759 Posts

April 27 2016 18:35 GMT

On April 28 2016 02:09 RoomOfMush wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't think I've talked to a single person in my entire starcraft history who liked the way blizzard was doing things.