This honestly was a map that was produced rather quickly after I noticed the new Meinhoff textures that were updated with 3.10. Just decided to make a standardish map, where two key bases would slow down mineral efficient unit compositions. I'm not sure if I'm too happy with those bases being lower mineral counts, but I feel it counteracts the jumpstart at the beginning with an extra mineral patch in the main. The goal was to create a midgame that approaches quicker than normal, but it's a bit harder to push out of that midgame even with expansions. If it's too much, I can easily reset the bases to a normal 8/2.
It's a nice standard map, but I'm not sure the mineral shenanigans are suited for this map. The 5th and 6th bases are already noticeably more disconnected than the third and fourth, so reducing their mineral count makes expansions that are already slightly undesirable even more undesirable.
My feeling is that atypical resource counts should be used to give interesting choices to the player. For example on Atlantis Spaceship it was the easily harassable third that had the extra geyser, while the normal third was easier to defend. On this map all it does is make the choice of fourth easier by disincentivizing those two bases.
Another pretty awesome map Avex, good job! I think my biggest problems with it are the different mineral counts & the expansion pattern choice.
Regarding Mineral Counts:
I think the main base NEEDS to have 8m2g no matter what. Otherwise you get oneindividual map that is going to have a ton of different timings, openers, cheeses, etc then every other map and that alone is going to make people veto it. Sure, it's only 1 extra mineral patch in the main but that means getting those reapers a few seconds earlier, getting that oracles faster, getting that all-in faster. With the LoTV economy the early game is already fast enough that I see no reason to try to accelerate that at all. I honestly don't see the point of making tough to hold bases with less minerals. If you want to have an inbase natural or a super easy to hold 3rd, then sure that makes sense to me to limit the mineral count. But when you can get end game with 3 base economy, having all your choices of 4ths be less minerals...what's the point of ever going past 3 base then? You're basically saying if you expand past a 3rd you're going to be punished.
Expansion Pattern:
Assuming the southeast main base, why would you ever expand north? Main/Nat, take the 3rd that hugs your main, then take the base at 6oclick, followed by the pocket base just north of that. They are all much easier to defend, would protect you better against drops and overall just seem closer to your other bases and further for the enemy. Think if you expand north for your 3rd, you're then most logical choice is the one just north of that but then not only are there less minerals (see above point) but that mineral line is sooooo easily harassable with it being right on the edge. I believe you either need to make that northern expansion path more easily attainable so people can choose either way depending on their playstyle or maybe just cut off the northern part completely and redesign it a bit, basically forcing players to expand one way but then if you redesign that side of the map maybe you could add more paths / flow to the map.
___
Overall, I do like the map quite a bit though, again assuming the southeast main base, I like the expansion pattern if you expand clockwise. The attack paths in the middle are interesting and for the most part the expansion placement is solid. Textures/Aesethtics you always do a fantastic job, so once again A+ work on that. I like the beach style you did with the somewhat Blotchy grass sprinkled in, makes it look pretty nice. I wonder if you also used some type of...I believe it's Tarsonis Grass? (The yellowish grass) so you could blend it even better. I don't know how it would look, maybe it'll look like ass but I'm just thinking in my head right now so can't open the editor and see how it'd actually look. I also absolutely love the water over the sand part or where you use the height/smoothing tool on the edges to far a nice smooth transition to deeper waters. To be fair though, the water in the middle will probably get removed because doesn't the terrain still bug out randomly if you ever build anything on it? Unless that was fixed, it's been awhile. ___ Great work Avex!
I'm not a mapmaker but I've been in master league for a few years at least and I'm interested in seeing how the different mineral counts can play out more before deciding that it doesn't work.
On February 02 2017 23:03 Adelull wrote: I'm not a mapmaker but I've been in master league for a few years at least and I'm interested in seeing how the different mineral counts can play out more before deciding that it doesn't work.
Unfortunately, Blizzard has made it a rule that all maps that ever want to make it to the ladder, are pretty much required to have 8min2gas on every base (but golds, with 6min patches)
On February 02 2017 23:03 Adelull wrote: I'm not a mapmaker but I've been in master league for a few years at least and I'm interested in seeing how the different mineral counts can play out more before deciding that it doesn't work.
Unfortunately, Blizzard has made it a rule that all maps that ever want to make it to the ladder, are pretty much required to have 8min2gas on every base (but golds, with 6min patches)
I am pretty sure AVEX did those mineral adjustments taking into account that Blizzard is willing to break those rules you describe in favor of more freedom for mapmakers. I think they announced it at Blizzcon? Definitly not too long ago.
On February 02 2017 23:03 Adelull wrote: I'm not a mapmaker but I've been in master league for a few years at least and I'm interested in seeing how the different mineral counts can play out more before deciding that it doesn't work.
Unfortunately, Blizzard has made it a rule that all maps that ever want to make it to the ladder, are pretty much required to have 8min2gas on every base (but golds, with 6min patches)
I am pretty sure AVEX did those mineral adjustments taking into account that Blizzard is willing to break those rules you describe in favor of more freedom for mapmakers. I think they announced it at Blizzcon? Definitly not too long ago.
Aye, upcoming TLMC will not have mineral count restrictions.
Everything Sidian + Zigg Said:
I think the 9/2 will definitely have an effect on the early game, yes. But, also consider that almost all other builds will be slightly faster as well, such as the slightly faster reaper. Keep in mind that's also one extra patch for zergling income, or a slightly faster adept, msc, etc. While I do think it will accelerate the strategies, I don't know if it will have as much as an effect as 10/2 would.
Regarding expansion patterns - I spoke with a couple of players shortly before posting to TL/Twitter/Reddit about the decisions one would make in varying matchups. I believe that the vertical (north/south) third base options would be recommended in non-Terran based matchups. For example, I would expect that base to be taken by a Protoss player in PvZ. It's pulled back into a corner, and is much less open to the surrounding region. In the case of PvZ, I feel as if that base were easily defended, the other third would be a decent option to become the new fourth, assuming a regular game where the protoss army is strong enough to hold a more open base. In terran-based matchups, I would not expect the northern base to be taken, due to the obvious strength of tank and liberator pushes, however, the distance for creep to travel is shorter to that base, so it's possible it would be taken for the sake of reinforcement (and all Zergs I know would break down the rocks there, which was placed purely to avoid tank abuse). I also like the tradeoff with both choices of expansions. Should you expand vertically, your third is tucked back in, and easier to wall, whereas your fourth is exposed. If you expand horizontally, your third is exposed and more difficult to hold, but your fourth is more fortified. That's the idea, anyway.
Regarding the aesthetics - The grass is a mix of Elsecaro and Bel'Shir BushEx2. Tarsonis' new yellow grass is really dark in bright lighting, so it'd look muddy and miss the mark unfortunately. As for the water, I could just make it unbuildable in pathing ;P
Agree w/ sidian on the main base probably needing to be 8m2g on all maps, good reasoning there.
I think maybe the more interesting idea is a nat that has less minerals on its patches (say, instead of 4 900s and 4 1500s you had all 900s or even 750s) in combination with normal or even highly defensible 4ths. That way your early game isn't affected at all, you can still max out on 3 base, but it creates an interesting strategic dilemma where if you put everything into your attack with your big army without holding a little back for expanding behind it and defending counterattacks, then you might be screwed bc your main and nat will both be mining out soon. Whereas right now you can max, fight, and then just keep making units on 3 base. There's not enough risk in it. This new way there would be this real choice of whether to use your maxed army to tightly secure your 4th and/or 5th, or go balls-deep on the attack. This would effectively increase the defender's advantage.
Or maybe not, idk. There's a good idea in there somewhere
edit: btw, rude of me, the map is good. Nice aesthetics as always and solid layout.
Hey I'm not sure how helpful it is, but I absolutely love this map :D also I have a few mid-high dia replays on this map if you need any. Nice work Avex ! :D
This map is a very solid macro map and fairly standard layout. I hope the altered minerals work out. I'm rather indifferent whether or not the main has 8 or 9 minerals. I'm more worried about the low mineral expansions on the map.
On February 02 2017 22:51 SidianTheBard wrote: I honestly don't see the point of making tough to hold bases with less minerals. If you want to have an inbase natural or a super easy to hold 3rd, then sure that makes sense to me to limit the mineral count. But when you can get end game with 3 base economy, having all your choices of 4ths be less minerals...what's the point of ever going past 3 base then? You're basically saying if you expand past a 3rd you're going to be punished.
I strongly agree with this. Low resource bases should have some element of risk vs reward. If it has less resources, make it easier to defend. If it has more resources, make it harder to defend. Having later game expansions with lower resource counts just discourages expansion.
Looks like a nice map but on 2nd tought, theres a big problem the layout has in my opinion. You can basically move from everywhere to everywhere all the time. Theres ramps just everywhere, where no mineral lines are preventing them to be. Its kinda works as a macro map, altough its offers strategic boringness. When you see the opponent somewhere, you can basically walk there in a straigt line, no air space, no rocks, no special terrain wall or sth
When you have to use this word to describe a map, it means that it's fairly standard and there's not much else to critique. This map is a finalist under the category of macro after all.
I know its a finalist, does that make it immune to critics? I Mean Avex has some time now, to maybe even improve the map, Its may still be a good macro map, never denied that.. but what i said is true isnt it. But now that i think about it, its a bit the same for vaani or newkirk, and they work well too. But its not what makes a really interesting and good map in my opinion. I made some pics to show what i mean: I simplified the "walking pattern" of some good standard maps:
dusk towers king sejong overgrowth coda echo (oops forgot 1 line there..)
and windwaker in comparison:
the walking patterns are everywhere and so evenly distributed, i dont think that makes an "interesting" map tbh
Maybe deleting 1 or 2 ramps and add some rocks maybe somewhere could make it better imo
It's a problem that NewSunshine first put into words best, I think, calling it "homogenous pathing", where basically what direction you go barely matters, the only thing that ends up mattering is distance between bases.
Of course mapmakers are kind of incentivized to use this kind of pathing recently with the rise of positional units like liberators, where if you can't flank/maneuver around them then the game can be quite punishing and "unfun".
So it's a fine line. And I think we all have trouble with this atm. Either you make it too restrictive and certain things are just OP, or it ends up being too boring because you can go everywhere with ease. I also like to say a map has "too much flow" when it gets to that point.
Anyway, I agree that this map in particular could use a couple less ramps to make army positioning/route choices matter a little more.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d868fUM.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Vas3edHl.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sGT7n7j.png )
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/QX8wMJP.png )
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YSxVvfx.png )
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/z960iyq.png )
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/n6AKfaO.png )
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wy39ni2.png)
Looks good though.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ue57008.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wdiaxz9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7YFz27G.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xF7cw7i.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hzr9Uay.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wniQg97.jpg)
