This one got rather close, it is not a bad map, even when it could be improved spacing is alright, the fourth and fifth bases might be a tad too easy to take but that's not the end of the world because it was sent as macro map, tho it indeed suffered from not standing out, it still has issues like execution on cliffing, being bigger on bounds than what would be ideal, the passage leading to the bases at top right/bottom left could have been improved by trying to find a way to merge it with the rest of the map, because as it stands now, it is just a simple passage to those bases, which doesnt really add much strategic depth to the map.
Ok I actually made the effort and read your opinion.
1. Sorry, I can't in no way agree with you that the map is not standing out. I won't even bother to evidence my claim. I'd like you to explain that to me a more precisely.
2. what is cliffing?
3. I don't exactly understand what you mean with bigger bounds, as the bounds for a macro map are already fairly small.
4. And I'm completely confused by your last argument. Just a passage to a base and no strategic depth? Should I make it an island base?
I'd be really happy if you could explain those points more exactly.
So you asked for feedback, got the feedback and made the effort to read it? Crazy.. You know there are others here who actually like to know what people and specially tlmc judges think about their maps.
aesthetic design here you find a lot of useful stuff including how to properly cliff. The 12 and 6 o'clock bases on Booma could be improved I guess.
On September 18 2017 09:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Could I get feedback on Yopico (+ Show Spoiler +
), and specifically about how it compares with Neon Violet Square (since both maps start from the same concept)?
On September 18 2017 09:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Also any general feedback about Asphodel (+ Show Spoiler +
) would be appreciated (I have a pretty good idea about what's wrong with it though, so if there's a high volume of questions feel free to skip it).
I sadly cant write about asphodel atm, I hoped yesterday to be able to do the write up about the map, but wasnt able, hope the vid for Yopico makes out for it somewhat, and this weekend I'll have more time to write more as I need to catch up to the other guy's maps aswell.
On September 18 2017 09:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Also any general feedback about Asphodel (+ Show Spoiler +
) would be appreciated (I have a pretty good idea about what's wrong with it though, so if there's a high volume of questions feel free to skip it).
I sadly cant write about asphodel atm, I hoped yesterday to be able to do the write up about the map, but wasnt able, hope the vid for Yopico makes out for it somewhat, and this weekend I'll have more time to write more as I need to catch up to the other guy's maps aswell.
Thank you very much for the feedback--I appreciate it.
I would specifically appreciate feedback on the concept of the split gold bases and how control of the opposing high grounds effects them. Also, if there were any thoughts on the expansion pattern.
I figure the rush distance is too short for its other features to work, but I want to just confirm. I get the impression it was discarded quickly for this reason.
I guess my concern is, how well did it do, and what was the specific reason other maps were chosen instead? Looking back I feel its pathing is slightly convoluted.
Did this map hit any targets for what constitutes a New map, in the judges' opinion? Was it a blatant imbalance of some sort that knocked it out, or something more subtle?
I really enjoy seeing the ideas Greywater has on the map, the bridges/choke points on the center, with the two highground wings around it. I really like those kinds of concepts as I consider them to be very, very solid, yet Greywater on my eyes suffers from some execution issues.
Where red are the biggest culprits, yellow are "livable" problems.
The area used/"wasted" on the highground passage between the third and the main base, I really consider would have been put to better use on other parts of the map, I really dont see almost any use for that highground to be there, other than offer harassment to an already considerably exposed base, the rocks at the end of the passage are basically 100% necessary because you have the passage in there on the first place. Remove the passage and re-use its space into making the forward "third" more holdable, or making the center a bit more interesting/maybe better polished.
Now going into the 2 and 7 corners of the map, all of that area could have been better used as part of the map itself, it is clear to see that the lowground "wings" around the edges of the map are rather cramped, yet that unused space on the very corners is right there to use, but wasnt, my advice would be to re-design that area, partially at least in order to better use the space you have available.
Yellow parts, for example the pond there, it is a bit on the oversized side of things in comparison to the size of the highround where it is located. Not the end of the world by any means, but because of the other issues with space it becomes highlighted.
Even when I kinda see the xel'naga towers as kind of accidental on their positioning, I really liked where they ended up being, as they work as anti-drop xel'nagas helping protect the main bases, and to spot a bit into the violet arrow which represents the "central attack lane", and that can help the map overall against too many baseraces and base trades as players can more easily spot the enemy army moving to attack.
For the most part, the map is alright, tho it suffered from execution problems, which meant it dropped places quick against other better executed maps in the highly competitive standard category.
Thanks for the feedback! Expected this about the forward base high ground and already changed it in a newer version, but the cramped low ground was news to me. I think you are very right though, having that extra space from the corners could help with some other problems. One quick note: the circle around the xel naga tower is slightly larger than drawn here, it covers pretty much the entire ramp under the violet arrow and they are not placed accidentally In an earlier version I had it on the high ground, not covering the big ramp but even more potentially drop routes. But that made the sides of the map and the "runby path" even less important so I moved them.
i'd love to have some feedback, too. Specifically third base, gold base, spacing (openness, chokes, distances) and expansion layout. + Show Spoiler [Verdure Island] +
On September 22 2017 08:10 Uvantak wrote: Now going into the 2 and 7 corners of the map, all of that area could have been better used as part of the map itself, it is clear to see that the lowground "wings" around the edges of the map are rather cramped, yet that unused space on the very corners is right there to use, but wasnt, my advice would be to re-design that area, partially at least in order to better use the space you have available.
I personally don't consider corner compression a big issue when used correctly. Like on abyssal reef, ascension to aiur (very slight), hwangsan, asteroid barricade, defender's resorts, grime, (anomaly if you remove the islands), +++ can't look up more maps to list them all right now)... Even star station re-edit did it well too. But it had issues because air blockers not being standard at the time. 30% air space in the corners lol (hello Catallena).
I think a lot of maps would benefit from rounded corners instead of just filling out the space with islands or bases. Not all, but some. For example Mech Depot is a map I'd have no problem with shifting the corner bases a little to the center horizontally on. Not saying every map should be a perfect circle or have rounded edges but it's not that bad. A slight round-off like on Abyssal Reef has a high-ish chance of making the map better imo.
edit: just wanna make clear that this was really sound feedback on the map. Filling out the corners is probably the best fix. It'd also be interesting to increase the map height to allow for more room to breathe too in the tops/bottoms of the midfield. Can also keep the corners a little bit rounded then.
On September 22 2017 18:14 Insidioussc2 wrote: Thanks for the feedback! Expected this about the forward base high ground and already changed it in a newer version, but the cramped low ground was news to me. I think you are very right though, having that extra space from the corners could help with some other problems. One quick note: the circle around the xel naga tower is slightly larger than drawn here, it covers pretty much the entire ramp under the violet arrow and they are not placed accidentally In an earlier version I had it on the high ground, not covering the big ramp but even more potentially drop routes. But that made the sides of the map and the "runby path" even less important so I moved them.
Yeah, I realized too late that the xel'naga range on the image is smaller than it should be, but not a big deal as I'm interested on you getting the idea more than all of the people in the thread :p
And regarding what snute said, yeah, I agree with you on the rounded corners, thing is that the rounded corners thing is very map dependent, so that takes away from using it as wide spread feedback for everyone because most often than not you will end up facing maps which could have been improved by using the corner space more efficiently, and it is easier to fix the corners (remove the corners) on a well spaced map, than it is to convert a badly spaced map without corners into a well spaced map. Sorry if it came out mangled, what I mean is that it is easier to crop corners, than to re-size every area on a map.
On September 18 2017 09:16 The_Templar wrote: If this is too much, just Vaunted Lab
On September 18 2017 09:16 The_Templar wrote:and Incubation is fine.
"New" category maps are imo probably the hardest ones to judge, as one simply lacks any measurement to which compare them to, but Incubation even when it is based on some good ideas here and there its execution isnt the best, and even when it is considered a "New" map I dont think it is stable enough and playable enough for it to reach ladder.
Here's one example:
I know it looks bad to leave this image ↑ just posted here, as you very well might have wanted that base to be easy to siege, but the thing is that on a map which is intended to be played ad nauseam for the next 3 to 6 months, having this kind of easy exploits is not "ideal".
Can be extremely hard to pull off because of the limited amount of attack paths between the players + Show Spoiler +
Because the small amount of attack paths can easily lead to stagnation and "general dullness" in games, as harassment with ground units becomes increasingly hard has the game advances, because of this very reason it can also lead to balance problems down the road, as races such as zerg count on ground based harassment to "make things work", and even when for Z itself it might not be the end of the world to have a map where ground harassment is less viable, there are other balance memes which hurt this map, like for example PvT dealing with liberator pushes, because of the central lanes there are basically no flanking options on the map, be it for Z or P against T pushes.
Anyhow, Assailant's Paradox actually is a pretty solid map, I now gotta leave, but if you were to make changes to it, I would start by making the blue thirds closer to the nat, and probably lowering 2 levels the central ridge/highground, so it is on the lowest level, and when that's done you could also add destructible rocks with loS Blockers behind the gold bases Also, make sure that players can easily wall off the natural base in the way showed, in order to allow them the choice to "not take" the half gold bases.
Thanks a bunch for the analysis, Uvantak. Incubation was a last-minute map so I didn't really think in-depth about what the impact of the two wide split paths would be, definitely something to keep in mind. Assailant's Paradox: I definitely should move those vertical bases closer - got that feedback elsewhere as well. That's a really interesting way to open up the center which I was having problems with, so I might give that a try. As it is, all attack paths either go towards that small ramp or cut through the rocks near the in-base golds.
As for Vaunted Lab, I think the forward third base being so exposed to the low ground is the result of me not realizing the vertical third was as far away as it was. I might make changes to both thirds but leave that low ground or place another base there. (I don't see an island base in Dusk Towers, so I'm not really sure what you meant by this comment?)
Tried to bring out different features with the return of the gold base, all the little ramps toward the middle, the potential forward 3rd base for aggressive. Figure maybe it was just too "normal"? I dunno. Thanks!
On September 23 2017 05:36 The_Templar wrote: Thanks a bunch for the analysis, Uvantak. Incubation was a last-minute map so I didn't really think in-depth about what the impact of the two wide split paths would be, definitely something to keep in mind. Assailant's Paradox: I definitely should move those vertical bases closer - got that feedback elsewhere as well. That's a really interesting way to open up the center which I was having problems with, so I might give that a try. As it is, all attack paths either go towards that small ramp or cut through the rocks near the in-base golds.
As for Vaunted Lab, I think the forward third base being so exposed to the low ground is the result of me not realizing the vertical third was as far away as it was. I might make changes to both thirds but leave that low ground or place another base there. (I don't see an island base in Dusk Towers, so I'm not really sure what you meant by this comment?)
@ Vaunted Lab, I'm not sure I agree that the 3rd needs to be rotated like that. It's much more that the alternative 3rd needs to be more takeable (which you did mention doing in the video. kudos). That way it's ok if tanks can hit the close 3rd, because the other option exists. I don't think we should be so close-minded that "tank can hit something = bad".
i.e. if someone wants to take that base vs T when there is another perfectly fine 3rd base option, then they can't really cry imba when siege tanks fuck them because that was their risk to take.
I think with the new setup you showed on the video, that base becomes too turtley. Maybe the best solution is a combination of the two ideas, where you remove the lowground from behind/beneath that base but keep the mineral line the same. That way the base is pretty safe from ground but air harass is still a thing.
I basically loved this one, but it had some issues on ZvZ on the Nats and around the Thirds with tanks, also, the other judges werent impressed with the lack of apparent choice/differences between the north and the south of the map, meaning that it suffered because both wings of the map are basically the same.
I personally have no issue with that what so ever, because the differences on terrain are mitigated by allowing players to show all their stylistic choices when it comes to actually playing on the map, yet the point they made still stands. So if you were to resubmit (which I would be ok with) I would suggest you to make changes to one of the sides of the map, be the north east or south west in order to differentiate it from the other one.
Also, Nat needs to be made safer on ZvZ:
The creep from the hatch needs to reach the choke point in order to allow Z to walloff, I would recommend to add some doodads/destructible rocks. Something like this might do + Show Spoiler +
. Main base ramp also needs to be tucked away more towards the hatch, in order to allow Z players to quickly do queen walloffs, also, in order to achieve that, the main base hatch/mineral/gas might need to be moved slightly closer to the Main ramp aswell, just 1 hex more or around that.
Tanks might also be a problem:
Possible solution? It might still not be enough, but that highground might give enough of a edge to the defender.
Overall I really, really liked the map, this is one of those that Im sad it didnt made it to the finalists.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Crimson Aftermath + Show Spoiler +
at least partly on purpose, but this is one of those things that plays out well on shorter map cycles than the current 3 to 6 month one blizzard is using atm, by the time the cycle comes the map would be hated by all the community.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Red Dragon + Show Spoiler +
Someone mentioned Red Dragon had a heated debate surrounding it so I'm curious there
The Red Dragon discussion centered around this, the relative openness of the highground in front of the Third, and how crucial it is, specially around early-midgame on PvZ.
I really, liked the layout of the map, and even when it has rough edges on other parts, the execution at a "terraining/mapmaking level" of the idea is very well done, but balance wise it doesnt quite hold up. specially when accounting for the far away "alternative" third, and how exposed it is aswell.
Even when accounting for the "Rush" category the map was on, the bases atm are simply too exposed, or they make the toss army that would need to defend them become too exposed, and therefore they would lead to balance issues.
Another point of contention is this area:
Specially the two ramps at the center left, thing is, that I personally dont really dislike them much, because I can't see many alternatives to them being the way they are, as they (imo) are necessary in order to slow down big enemy armies, maybe adding LoS blockers on top of the highground might make them more palatable?
The area marked on red,I also dont consider it strictly necessary for it to be heavily re-designed, but yes maybe re-worked so the "optional" third is closer to the nat ramp, not as exposed, and overall fit better.
Going back into the highground in front of the third, probably a rework on this lines will help regarding openess, specially when we take into account the future addition of Shieldbatteries.
its not just that you absolutely cant wall, theres also so much space where you can get lings and banes almost unseen and hide them. This base is like 240° open without a wall. You can almost get into the main unseen. it is soo open theres like 0 chance for roaches to hug a wall somewhere. cant even put a queen/roach behind the minerals. On most maps, where you couldnt make a whole wall you could at least wall a bit iirc. I can understand the ZvZ problem..
I basically loved this one, but it had some issues on ZvZ on the Nats and around the Thirds with tanks, also, the other judges werent impressed with the lack of apparent choice/differences between the north and the south of the map, meaning that it suffered because both wings of the map are basically the same.
I personally have no issue with that what so ever, because the differences on terrain are mitigated by allowing players to show all their stylistic choices when it comes to actually playing on the map, yet the point they made still stands. So if you were to resubmit (which I would be ok with) I would suggest you to make changes to one of the sides of the map, be the north east or south west in order to differentiate it from the other one.
Also, Nat needs to be made safer on ZvZ:
The creep from the hatch needs to reach the choke point in order to allow Z to walloff, I would recommend to add some doodads/destructible rocks. Something like this might do + Show Spoiler +
. Main base ramp also needs to be tucked away more towards the hatch, in order to allow Z players to quickly do queen walloffs, also, in order to achieve that, the main base hatch/mineral/gas might need to be moved slightly closer to the Main ramp aswell, just 1 hex more or around that.
Tanks might also be a problem:
Possible solution? It might still not be enough, but that highground might give enough of a edge to the defender.
Overall I really, really liked the map, this is one of those that Im sad it didnt made it to the finalists.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Crimson Aftermath + Show Spoiler +
at least partly on purpose, but this is one of those things that plays out well on shorter map cycles than the current 3 to 6 month one blizzard is using atm, by the time the cycle comes the map would be hated by all the community.
On September 18 2017 15:29 Fatam wrote:Red Dragon + Show Spoiler +
Someone mentioned Red Dragon had a heated debate surrounding it so I'm curious there
The Red Dragon discussion centered around this, the relative openness of the highground in front of the Third, and how crucial it is, specially around early-midgame on PvZ.
I really, liked the layout of the map, and even when it has rough edges on other parts, the execution at a "terraining/mapmaking level" of the idea is very well done, but balance wise it doesnt quite hold up. specially when accounting for the far away "alternative" third, and how exposed it is aswell.
Even when accounting for the "Rush" category the map was on, the bases atm are simply too exposed, or they make the toss army that would need to defend them become too exposed, and therefore they would lead to balance issues.
Another point of contention is this area:
Specially the two ramps at the center left, thing is, that I personally dont really dislike them much, because I can't see many alternatives to them being the way they are, as they (imo) are necessary in order to slow down big enemy armies, maybe adding LoS blockers on top of the highground might make them more palatable?
The area marked on red,I also dont consider it strictly necessary for it to be heavily re-designed, but yes maybe re-worked so the "optional" third is closer to the nat ramp, not as exposed, and overall fit better.
Going back into the highground in front of the third, probably a rework on this lines will help regarding openess, specially when we take into account the future addition of Shieldbatteries.
Really incredible feedback, thanks. The drawings are awesome. I see the logic and agree with a high % of it. I know Grime had a similar ZvZ walling problem before I fixed it pre-submission, so it looks like that is something I need to keep an eye on a lot more. (it would be nice if Blizzard designed their game better so we didn't have to have 20 bandaids per map for different nuanced things like this, but oh well)
@ the one third option being somewhat close to the highground cliffs (and hence siegable) on Crimson Aftermath, I'd like to explain my reasoning for any judges who might see this (just to kind of expose you guys to how mapmakers might be thinking of things, and maybe it will help in the future? idk. transparency is good)
1) it's a pretty easy 3 base if you have the base really far from the cliff. Mech and protoss possibly become cancerous. 2) the picture shows zerg taking a base there and terran being able to siege it, but the idea was that there are multiple 3rd and 4th base options. So against Terran you simply don't take that base until much later.
i.e. Zerg just wouldn't be taking that base against Terran, especially not as a third.
3) In non-terran MUs you still want that base near the cliff so that air harass can still be attempted. Which is why I had the geysers on that side. It being behind double rock I find the base needs to be at least somewhat contestable.
I do appreciate that you acknowledged that it was on purpose and not recklessly placed. lol
To expand on this, IMO people have been thinking about thirds wrongly in SC2 for a while. Me and Sidian have been on this train for a while, but the gist is that if you have multiple third options the chances that people will figure out a way to succeed on the map with their race.. skyrockets. Maps with optional expo paths almost always do well in terms of winrates (assuming there is not some huge imba thing that affects the entire map and overshadows it, such as the long length of apotheosis)
Also it's nitpicky but I'll share why I didn't make this base a half-base
to defend that base from harass you need to have control of all 3 areas (red dots). Kind of hard to do at the same time. Or you can merge the 2 highground dots if you defend on the lowground, but then.. you're on the lowground Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/0728/rrdc3ckprzk8rbazg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/rQ7RrlV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/boDSYcn.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GLEFxdY.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4TLBKz7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qvQyKID.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cml58Mi.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qQWLGnB.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/UzWyy4g.jpg)
In an earlier version I had it on the high ground, not covering the big ramp but even more potentially drop routes. But that made the sides of the map and the "runby path" even less important so I moved them.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tHpOLCK.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xwPjitp.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/DyJvNjt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3LcHW7c.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/d2Jf6zs.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QYloSUQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IElyhs7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/qqTEDFI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/8I9SoND.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/MoCuzQh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/PAYGG25.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rmfZj6D.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/R5zACA2.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/h9XaPmh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/7NG4P7y.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Q9uTPlf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/h8akj7V.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/AJe7QMy.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/4CUXuuf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/DPUjJAd.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/U2hAgyT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/PkRwiuZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/siV9h3w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6qYT1od.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6AnK2bR.jpg)
Deceptively tricky base to defend, I thought it was kinda cheeky when I added it.
