Relocated gold expo from high ground to low ground in more central location.
Former location of gold narrowed and 'decorative' islands added instead.
Relocated "3rd" expansion (next to gold) to high ground.
Middle high ground access ramp moved and narrowed.
Maintained natural choke size but slightly reduced high ground defence advantage from main.
Numerous other tweaks and aesthetic changes.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

June 30 2010 20:22 GMT

#22

I like these changes - keep up the good work!

I strongly believe that we could see this map in competitive games!

dimfish

United States663 Posts

June 30 2010 20:32 GMT

#23

funcmode, I had the same problem as others when looking at the center of the map, I see how open it is now. That aside (which isn't a big deal after you point it out!) I like the layout of your map very much. The ridge extending from the mains but protected by D-rocks could create some interesting expansion or attack patterns. There is a really nice combination of tight and open spaces I think, too.

You pointed out that the gold expos have slightly different average openness (I think guy who wrote the map analyzer, by the way). I was wondering if you'd send me the map so I can look into this for you. I'm guessing the issue is either that when the analyzer discovers the location of a base it uses the average location of the resources, so even one differently placed mineral patch could change the base location and therefore the openness calc. But maybe its something else, or a bug in the analyzer.

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

June 30 2010 20:55 GMT

#24

On July 01 2010 05:32 dimfish wrote:
funcmode, I had the same problem as others when looking at the center of the map, I see how open it is now. That aside (which isn't a big deal after you point it out!) I like the layout of your map very much. The ridge extending from the mains but protected by D-rocks could create some interesting expansion or attack patterns. There is a really nice combination of tight and open spaces I think, too.

You pointed out that the gold expos have slightly different average openness (I think guy who wrote the map analyzer, by the way). I was wondering if you'd send me the map so I can look into this for you. I'm guessing the issue is either that when the analyzer discovers the location of a base it uses the average location of the resources, so even one differently placed mineral patch could change the base location and therefore the openness calc. But maybe its something else, or a bug in the analyzer.

I'm glad I could clear up the issue regarding the centre. I guess having made the map and knowing personally what is pathable and what isn't made me assume people would be able to tell just as easily. How wrong I was ;D

Regarding the Map Analyser, the map file is available for download (links at top and bottom of OP and in my last post) so you can just open it in the editor and take a look for yourself if you'd like. I spent a while myself trying to find out exactly what was causing the difference between the two golds, even so far as to count all of the surrounding pathing squares to no avail. As far as I can tell they are identical (the mineral patches and geyser placement is identical too) yet yield different results in the analyser. I'm kind of baffled by it, so if others were to take a look I'd much appreciate it. I'm glad you like what you see though.

Thanks for the comment (you too Antares777).

GenesisX

Canada4267 Posts

June 30 2010 20:58 GMT

#25

I think the natural's gas is tankable from adjacent cliffs, not too sure though. Cliffs around the map are super terran imba - mainly because they can harass gold easily (not too big of a problem), but they can also hit the 3rd base. Your watchtower placement is stellar, however. Also, why only one choke in the whole map? The two ramps above and below it are too small for any large army to cross, so holding the middle is crucial. The way you made the map encourages players to stay on their own side, thus forcing players to only hold 5 expansions at the max. My main advice is to fix the cliffs near the left and right side of the map - maybe make the more strategical somehow so that if an enemy does make it there, the mineral mining will not be as easily disrupted AND that it will be easier to hold if the enemy does try to expand to their opponent's side of the map.

c.Deadly

United States545 Posts

June 30 2010 21:42 GMT

#26

This map is one of the better original maps I've seen. A tight choke into the natural expansion and a nice open center with useful watchtower positions is really good.

What irks me about the map is the layout of the northwest/southeast portions. It all seems very tight and inaccessible. Like if I was playing Zerg and I started in the bottom left, I would probably take the bottom right expo as a 3rd base instead of the "intended" 3rd. The ramp and the distance from the enemy base makes it much easier to defend.

I'd suggest making the destructible rock behind the main block a ramp down to the intended 3rd base, then have a larger ramp lead up to the high ground behind the gold minerals. Try and open up the 4th/5th bases with wider ramps like the corresponding areas on Match Point.

Overall I like it, it's much better than most of the blizzard maps we've seen so far.

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

June 30 2010 22:11 GMT

#27

On July 01 2010 05:58 GenesisX wrote:
I think the natural's gas is tankable from adjacent cliffs, not too sure though. Cliffs around the map are super terran imba - mainly because they can harass gold easily (not too big of a problem), but they can also hit the 3rd base. Your watchtower placement is stellar, however. Also, why only one choke in the whole map? The two ramps above and below it are too small for any large army to cross, so holding the middle is crucial. The way you made the map encourages players to stay on their own side, thus forcing players to only hold 5 expansions at the max. My main advice is to fix the cliffs near the left and right side of the map - maybe make the more strategical somehow so that if an enemy does make it there, the mineral mining will not be as easily disrupted AND that it will be easier to hold if the enemy does try to expand to their opponent's side of the map.

Awesome reply, lots to think about here.

Yes, the natural's gas (and a few patches, but not the base itself) is tankable from the cliffs - this is by design. Because the natural is (otherwise) quite easy to defend cause of its small choke and proximity to the main, I wanted harass to be at least an option. Terran can tank the natural, zerg can use backdoors and so on.

While I agree that the amount of high ground around the outside of the map is powerful for terran players, you said yourself that holding the middle is crucial (which it is - on almost every map). So a terran player who chooses to try and abuse this could end up leaving their own main/nat wide open. Or by the time the terran has enough tanks to both harass and turtle, their opponent really should have at least one air unit (observer, fast overlord, etc) to make the high ground advantage moot. Or they could just expand to the other side of the map instead. I find it hard to believe that a terran could abuse both golds while maintaining strong defence of the main/natural.

It was my intention for players to be able to take 2 expansions relatively easily, but the gold and 3rd expansions are almost the same distance from both mains, so theoretically players could take either gold/3rd regardless of spawn location. Players then try and control the middle as best they can while using the surrounding high ground paths to harass.

And yes, while the very centre of the map is essentially one big choke, I think the structures the watchtowers are placed in divide up the middle significantly enough. And while I see your point, I also mostly disagree that the map design encourages players to only hold 5 expo's at most. If you can push your opponent back to his natural choke you could take as many as 7, even 8 expansions.

I'm definitely toying with the idea of making the ramps behind the gold expo's bigger as to allow larger armies to pass through more quickly, though this would make the 3rd expo a bit harder to defend.

Thanks for the input =)

On July 01 2010 06:42 c.Deadly wrote:
This map is one of the better original maps I've seen. A tight choke into the natural expansion and a nice open center with useful watchtower positions is really good.

What irks me about the map is the layout of the northwest/southeast portions. It all seems very tight and inaccessible. Like if I was playing Zerg and I started in the bottom left, I would probably take the bottom right expo as a 3rd base instead of the "intended" 3rd. The ramp and the distance from the enemy base makes it much easier to defend.

I'd suggest making the destructible rock behind the main block a ramp down to the intended 3rd base, then have a larger ramp lead up to the high ground behind the gold minerals. Try and open up the 4th/5th bases with wider ramps like the corresponding areas on Match Point.

Overall I like it, it's much better than most of the blizzard maps we've seen so far.

Very interesting indeed. I can definitely see what you're getting at (out of the 3 races I have the least experience with zerg which is probably why I didn't think about this).

I want to say that the reason the northwest/southeast parts of the map are so tight is because I primarily imagined most games being 2-3 base battles in the middle with these parts being used for harass and later-game expansions only. But your comment about taking the 4th instead of the intended 3rd throw this up in the air somewhat.

Do you think that increasing the size of the entrance/ramp to the 4th in an effort to make it harder to defend would be enough of an incentive for zerg players to take the intended 3rd instead? Though I'm definitely intrigued by your ideas to improve the 3rd and will most definitely experiment with them if other people think it's a good idea.

Excellent reply, thank you. Keep them coming guys =)