You really think this is not enough space? Personally I think that expo would be far too hard to hold without that small wall or at least something there, but no-one really brought it up before so I guessed it was fine. Anyone else willing to weigh in on this issue?

I think its good there, but you might consider making it lowground. That way it chokes it up, but still makes it easy to hold (because of vision). Really up to you, don't think it would change much-- but don't remove it.

Exstasy

United Kingdom393 Posts

March 13 2011 11:20 GMT

#23

Possibly the best map I have ever seen =D
I love how many Expansions there are, and how wide open the map is

Cannot wait to play this non stop
Great Work!

Mereel

Germany895 Posts

March 13 2011 11:40 GMT

#24

im talking about the other third^^

normaly i would build my extra gates at the third but there is no place for it. also a planetary fortress becomes much stronger in a narrow path.

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

March 13 2011 16:39 GMT

#25

On March 13 2011 20:40 Mereel wrote:
im talking about the other third^^

+ Show Spoiler +

normaly i would build my extra gates at the third but there is no place for it. also a planetary fortress becomes much stronger in a narrow path.

That's the same third as the picture I took a few posts ago, and of course they're all completely identical

Space there is a bit tight, but it's supposed to be that way. The two optional third's are delicately balanced so that there are both pros and cons for taking either of them. This third in question is designed to be the most appealing for Terrans especially, so naturally I tested planetary fortresses and they didn't seem to be overpowered in this position.

Also, I don't quite understand why you'd build additional warpgates at the third expo unless it was your intention to wall it off or make it narrower still, in which case there's definitely space for 3-5 structures around the expo. But since the location of warpgates in terms of producing units is irrelevant, I don't see why you'd need to build them at the third when there's still lots of space in the main to use?

I do appreciate your concern of course, and I will be paying lots of attention to this aspect of the map's layout whenever I get the chance to see games played on the map, but for now I think I'm quite content with it.

oh and @Exstasy - thanks for the compliments, I'm glad you like it and enjoy playing on it

FlopTurnReaver

Switzerland1980 Posts

March 13 2011 21:35 GMT

#26

The only problem as of right now I can think of is that the natural seems a bit vulnurable to Siege Tanks when the Terran is in counter clockwise position.

lefix

Germany1082 Posts

March 14 2011 01:53 GMT

#27

i had a little graphical glitch where all the inserted wall pieces in the cliffs were dyed dark purple, not really matching the color.

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

March 14 2011 02:48 GMT

#28

@FlopTurnReaver - In light of you saying this, I went and investigated the power of siege tanks in this position further. I was rather sad to discover that siege tanks could enter the small areas behind the minerals and gas right next to the natural (I always thought tanks couldn't fit through a 1-square gap, but in some cases it seems they can), allowing them to range most of the natural.

So, I've added a couple of small doodads which conveniently block tank access to the space behind the minerals/gas, while still allowing smaller units to pass through. You can see the doodads in this image:

Note that a couple of tanks can still range a few mineral patches, and a medivac can still drop a tank or two into the area behind the minerals, but the tanks themselves can no longer access it on the ground. I hope that this change is significant enough to stop this from becoming a true positional imbalance. More thoughts on this would be welcome.

@lefix - Yeah, I mentioned this in the note at the end of the OP. It's some strange quirk with the way custom colours affect this doodad specifically, it either looks fine on high or low graphic settings but not both. I've been trying to find a way to make it work without using a custom texture for it (increases the size (MB) of the map) but have had no luck, so I guess I'll get to work on that custom texture...

Version 1.1 has now been released with the above mentioned tank-blocking doodads.

Zeddicus

United States239 Posts

March 16 2011 19:27 GMT

#29

On March 13 2011 20:40 Mereel wrote:
im talking about the other third^^

This map looks pretty cool, and Mereel's quote sums it up for me. I really like the option to choose 3rd and 4th direction from your base. It's pretty neat to be able to scout them and just expand in the opposite direction. Aesthetics are beautiful too.

dimfish

United States663 Posts

March 16 2011 22:14 GMT

#30

I think the tank-blocking doodads are a good change, but there's always this problem of making it clear to players how the map works. Have you considered whether players might get frustrated if their tanks jitter when it looks like they might fit through?

Or maybe players will just find out in practice games they can't get tanks in there

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

March 17 2011 23:27 GMT

#31

Version 1.2 of Sanctuarium has been released:

The tank-blocking doodads at the 'outside' third have been changed to better represent their purpose to players (see screenshot).
The graphical bug with the broken wall sections showing up off-colour on low graphics settings has been fixed (using a custom texture).

Here's an image showing the new doodads around the third:

@dimfish - I did my best with this new version to make it obvious to players that getting tanks behind that mineral line shouldn't be possible. I hope players agree, when I was testing it it seemed to me like it should be obvious enough. But in all seriousness, if you have some awesome strategy that hinges completely on being able to put tanks in this location and then you get there and realize you can't... well you only have yourself to blame

.

After watching some additional replays on this map, I got to thinking about the watchtower placement. Only a few hours later, FlopTurnReaver PM'd me and brought up the same subject. Essentially the role of the watchtowers in games where players spawn close positions is quite diminished due to the fastest attack path between the two bases not travelling through it's vision.

With that in mind, I experimented with alternative watchtower placement. After a while though, it became readily apparent to me that having 4 watchtowers, even just a tiny bit nearer the outside of the map, made turtling far too powerful by giving players easy vision of both ramps up to the natural. There was one location which seemed like it could be an improvement, however putting one there as is would give a player vision in to the main base (protoss OP) and even then wouldn't give much of a heads up when an attack is moving out, since the distances between the two natural ramps is quite small to begin with.

So, I'm leaving the watchtower as it is for now. In close positions, it won't see much effective use until one player takes a third base, and players will just have to get used to the fact that being in control of the watchtower doesn't mean you're immune to surprise attacks (especially in close positions).

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

March 18 2011 21:56 GMT

#32

On March 18 2011 08:27 funcmode wrote:
So, I'm leaving the watchtower as it is for now. In close positions, it won't see much effective use until one player takes a third base, and players will just have to get used to the fact that being in control of the watchtower doesn't mean you're immune to surprise attacks (especially in close positions).

Poor babies. It's just fine in the close positions games I've played. XWT coddle the weak. =D

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

March 18 2011 23:16 GMT

#33

The XWT is fine as it is - why should XWTs always enable you to scout early movement (non-cross-spawns)? This XWT gives an advantage during the later stages of the game where the mid becomes more important. I think this is absolutely fine and good. If you want to scout early engagements you have those awesome cliffs at the 3rds screaming 'place overlord here'.

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

March 23 2011 22:46 GMT

#34

from the iCCup Testbug thread:

On March 24 2011 07:30 funcmode wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yeah I fixed that in the latest update (check the map thread for details) - however the MotM version hasn't been updated yet (on EU at least, not sure about US).

I took that screenshot on your upload of the map. But now that I played it again it was all fine. Also everything was fine on the MotM version now. I have all graphic settings on highest possible.

So apparently this still happens randomly sometimes.

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

March 23 2011 23:21 GMT

#35

On March 24 2011 07:46 Ragoo wrote:
from the iCCup Testbug thread:

Show nested quote +

You're absolutely positive you took that SS on my version? That's very peculiar if true. If it's fine on both now then I guess you can't reproduce the problem... Theoretically (if the EU version hasn't been updated yet), then it should look a bit funky on low settings, and fine on high/ultra and maybe medium. My latest version should look fine on any graphics settings.