|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/hWWea.jpg)
Archi - Abandon
This map is now published on the EU SC2 server. If you want to try it out just search for it.
Also it is up for Download
I had to start and stop this map so many times because of uni work, that I ended up naming it Abandon and turned it into an abandoned man-made isle. Another reason is because I abandoned a few of my usual map building traits to try some other ideas. Finally, many of the areas on the map need a dedicated investment to defend or use them to really push, anything less can means the opponent can make use of that areas vulnerability. Equally, no expo is too far from each other and so expanding to them isn't much trouble, the hope was that if a player feels its needed, the choice to abandon an area and re-establish somewhere else would be less likely feel like something that isn't an option, maybe even invest in an expo temporarily to draw forces one way whilst they heavily invest in another (the last might be asking a bit much really).
I was wondering if people would be willing to offer their oppinions on the layout of this map and a few of the features.
Map view
+ Show Spoiler +
Angled View
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
Features:
Center Area:
+ Show Spoiler +Image + Show Spoiler +Comments + Show Spoiler +Usually I tend to have a rather large centre area (in comparrison to this map) where I expect lots of movement and combat to happen.
This time, even though there is space for movement directly in the centre, the combat in that area is meant to lean toward something a bit more tentative.
-The close golds allow for an offensive base/rally point to quickly reinforce units.
-The absloute center has a little more space as pushes between the to golds have a high probability.
-The centre XNT offer vision over their half of the centre and two of the flanking routes.
-The platforms for the XNT towers split the area to create flanking/alternate routes and the LOS is to serve two main purposes (amongst other fun regular play objectives), firstly to aid in hiding a flanking tactics so they can have a chance to act more as ambushes but also to make the both players tentative about crossing that line if they dont have vision and to give something to worry about with regards to flanking tactics.
- The gold expos are pretty vulnerable with the large ramps on either side, partly to make any centre push slightly more risky, devoting to much to a push to the enemy gold or losing too much in a push would mean that a the expo could be victim to a flank and be hard to defend - I cant predict what will happen, but I like the idea of players judging how important that expo is in how much they would invest to protect it.
Spawn to Spawn
+ Show Spoiler +Obviously the fastest route as usual is through the centre, but rush time is a little longer than on most of my maps. From spawn ramp to spawn ramp, at marine running speed, its about 1:20secs game time, compared to my usual 50secs-1:10secs I usually do. This is to make rush tactics more risky in that if someone really wants to do that, it is still possible, but it will need more of an investment to do it, so if it fails its harder to recover from.
The goal of this is mainly because I wanted the map to lean strongly to a mid-long term match, but without removing the option for someone to rush. Additionally because its two player, scouting time to locate a base is not needed, so people that want to rush without scouting can always attempt it.
Natural
+ Show Spoiler +Image + Show Spoiler +Comments + Show Spoiler +The naturals have a backdoor, with destructible LOS/Path blocking cars (which is not new to my urban maps). The HP of each car is only 100, and there are 6 cars. So they dont take much to be destroyed. This is to offer some minor security to the backdoor of the natural, but also to make it easier for a player to expand in that direction if they want to. Additionally, a player can destroy just a section of the cars to move units through, if they want to use it as a choke (even though that choke might be temporary).
Thirds
+ Show Spoiler +Image + Show Spoiler +6 o'clock ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MO4hX.jpg) 9 o'clock ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OuaK8.jpg) comments + Show Spoiler +Well the thirds are easy to get to. Though the 12 and 6 thirds are more defensible. This is because they offer only a single route to the enemy and the high ground next to offers an advantage over that area. the 9 and 3 thirds can help reinforce the gold, are easy to reinfoce themselves and help cover the nexus to two map routes, for that reason that a very open, though its on high ground to help with its defense, and to encorage use of the rest of the map.
The outside routes
+ Show Spoiler +image + Show Spoiler +comments + Show Spoiler +The outside routes are pretty straight forward really, the gold will help reinforce a push in that direction, though the highground is obviously the key their, the back lowground route to the is to offer an alternative route for other tactical uses.
- The destructible cars on the high ground are path and sight blockers. Each with only 100hp. This is to make the low ground path more useful and because the high gound grants a big advantage in that area, its to make it just a little harder to take. Also all the cars dont need to be destroyed to make a path to the high ground, so players can destroy selected cars to make a choke if they want to. Additionally, spash damage will destroy multiple cars at once.
EDIT:
XNT - Each tower is just out of range of the other, and each tower covers two paths to an area but there is always one path not covered that leads to the same area.
These were the main thoughts behind these features, but i tried to keep them open enough for players to do the wierd and wonderful things they do that make maps interesting and that you really cant guess at. I am asking for quite alot out of this map and so in a way i suppose its kind of an experiment at the same time, to see how much actually comes out of it.
Thanks for reading.
|
the middle part is pretty cool, i like how its sorta seperated from the outskirts. i dont know about the 4 towers though. ill try it out after i work on my map 
|
On December 18 2010 12:18 WniO wrote:the middle part is pretty cool, i like how its sorta seperated from the outskirts. i dont know about the 4 towers though. ill try it out after i work on my map
I should of said about the XNT, each tower is just out of range of the other, and each tower covers to paths to an area but there is always one path not covered that leads to the same area.
|
Can you add some Analyzer pics please?
|
i feel like muta/banshee harrass from third to main would be so painful kittens will die each time someone does it.
But nice map anyways
|
Nice map, it seems like the ramps to the naturals are a little bit small, but that might just be because the are in cardinal directions.
Four high yield expansions are too much, especially if they have more minerals than six, for a 1v1 map. You probably would want to make one of them a normal expansion (the ones on the outskirts of the map should be made into normal expansions imho).
Your aesthetics are very pleasing and show much skill and all the time that was put into this map. I love the middle design, and can't wait to see some nasty battles there. I really like the XWT placement as well, they are isolated from each other but reveal generally some of the same area and can really help in spotting armies moving through the side routes. The name is also very creative and something that you wouldn't expect for the name of a map, but it fits this map well.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 13:17 iGrok wrote:
Can you add some Analyzer pics please?
Analyzer pics added
+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 14:15 Antares777 wrote:Nice map, it seems like the ramps to the naturals are a little bit small, but that might just be because the are in cardinal directions. Four high yield expansions are too much, especially if they have more minerals than six, for a 1v1 map. You probably would want to make one of them a normal expansion (the ones on the outskirts of the map should be made into normal expansions imho). Your aesthetics are very pleasing and show much skill and all the time that was put into this map. I love the middle design, and can't wait to see some nasty battles there. I really like the XWT placement as well, they are isolated from each other but reveal generally some of the same area and can really help in spotting armies moving through the side routes. The name is also very creative and something that you wouldn't expect for the name of a map, but it fits this map well.
I was wondering about the high yield expansions. The ones on the outside began life as normal expo's, but then I felt having 2 golds in the centre only, focused too much of the map around that area, so I Midased the outside expos and lowered all gold expos to 6 min pacthes.
Then I felt that, given the vulneralbility of the gold expos, having 6 patches wouldnt be worth the investment one might put into it, also one might feel the need to be more agressive (along which ever route they are pushing) because those expos wont last quite as long. Which worked against the tentative idea I was trying to make in.
Eventually I ended up with what I have, one of the ideas was to make each route seem as viable as the other, and worth transferring your investment over from one route to another without feeling it cost too much.
I almost took away all the golds and changed them to normal expos. But somehow it all felt a little less I want that expo and a bit more i could take that expo I suppose.
Though I was wondering, why 4 golds is too much for a 1v1, if you could explain that a little further I would be greatful.
|
If I may, how bout: Goldrush?
Never mind, you already took out the gold.
|
On December 18 2010 20:06 baskerville wrote:
If I may, how bout: Goldrush?
Never mind, you already took out the gold.
I didnt remove the gold, also what do you mean by Goldrush? is that a map or a tactic? (I must sound so noobish right now  )
EDIT -
I finished it off in the end. I decided to stick with 4 golds on the map. Additionally I added destrctible cars in the outside route ares.
I have updated the main thread with new pics and analyzer pics, as well as details of where to DL it and play it. Also I added a couple of extra details about the features.
|
On December 18 2010 19:52 Archivian wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 13:17 iGrok wrote:
Can you add some Analyzer pics please? Analyzer pics added + Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 14:15 Antares777 wrote:Nice map, it seems like the ramps to the naturals are a little bit small, but that might just be because the are in cardinal directions. Four high yield expansions are too much, especially if they have more minerals than six, for a 1v1 map. You probably would want to make one of them a normal expansion (the ones on the outskirts of the map should be made into normal expansions imho). Your aesthetics are very pleasing and show much skill and all the time that was put into this map. I love the middle design, and can't wait to see some nasty battles there. I really like the XWT placement as well, they are isolated from each other but reveal generally some of the same area and can really help in spotting armies moving through the side routes. The name is also very creative and something that you wouldn't expect for the name of a map, but it fits this map well. I was wondering about the high yield expansions. The ones on the outside began life as normal expo's, but then I felt having 2 golds in the centre only, focused too much of the map around that area, so I Midased the outside expos and lowered all gold expos to 6 min pacthes. Then I felt that, given the vulneralbility of the gold expos, having 6 patches wouldnt be worth the investment one might put into it, also one might feel the need to be more agressive (along which ever route they are pushing) because those expos wont last quite as long. Which worked against the tentative idea I was trying to make in. Eventually I ended up with what I have, one of the ideas was to make each route seem as viable as the other, and worth transferring your investment over from one route to another without feeling it cost too much. I almost took away all the golds and changed them to normal expos. But somehow it all felt a little less I want that expo and a bit more i could take that expo I suppose. Though I was wondering, why 4 golds is too much for a 1v1, if you could explain that a little further I would be greatful.
Four high yield expansions are too many for a 1v1 imho because that's two high yield expansions for each player. That's a lot of resources (picture Terran using Mules on TWO high yield expansions). On Lost Temple, there are only two high yield expansions, and depending on where you spawn and how long the game goes, a player will usually have only one high yield expansion (or none, if they spawn close to each other and the enemy gets it. In this example, it makes the high yield expansion more of a contested expansion, which is I think what you wanted by "I want this" not "well I guess I'll take this".). Lost Temple is a 4 player map. Same with Metalopolis, and they have only two high yield expansions. XC has two, BS has two, and a lot of 1v1 maps made by iCCup and even other mapmakers have two. Some have one, like... I was going to say Scrap Station, but I'm not sure, there might be two...
I think I know what you want with this map. I think that if you want players to not just hang out at the middle of the map, then decrease the amount of minerals at the middle high yield expansions to 5, and change the outside expansions to normal expansions, or maybe even expansions with nine mineral fields (also remove the DRs there). This will make the middle expansions really important in mid game, but then they will get mined out, and the outside expansions (especially the one with nine minerals) will be there and won't get mined out as fast, so that they support later game better. This will make it so that the players are crazy for the high yield expansions, but then they get mined out, and the middle is less popular. Then, the map influences players to expand on the outsides (hopefully, this is all in theory).
OR
You could change the middle so that there is only one high yield expansion that is contested. This will definitely make players think "I want this". The player that succeeds in getting it would just force the other player to expand on the outside, thus getting your outside areas of the map more use.
You don't have to do either of those ideas, but I know that four high yield expansions is too many for a 1v1 map, and should be modified.
I like the lighting better than the previous image, is this in game or in the editor?
EDIT: Also, destructible cars? That's cool, I didn't know those were in the editor.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
I was wondering about the high yield expansions. The ones on the outside began life as normal expo's, but then I felt having 2 golds in the centre only, focused too much of the map around that area, so I Midased the outside expos and lowered all gold expos to 6 min pacthes.
Then I felt that, given the vulneralbility of the gold expos, having 6 patches wouldnt be worth the investment one might put into it, also one might feel the need to be more agressive (along which ever route they are pushing) because those expos wont last quite as long. Which worked against the tentative idea I was trying to make in.
Eventually I ended up with what I have, one of the ideas was to make each route seem as viable as the other, and worth transferring your investment over from one route to another without feeling it cost too much.
I almost took away all the golds and changed them to normal expos. But somehow it all felt a little less I want that expo and a bit more i could take that expo I suppose.
Though I was wondering, why 4 golds is too much for a 1v1, if you could explain that a little further I would be greatful.
Four high yield expansions are too many for a 1v1 imho because that's two high yield expansions for each player. That's a lot of resources (picture Terran using Mules on TWO high yield expansions). On Lost Temple, there are only two high yield expansions, and depending on where you spawn and how long the game goes, a player will usually have only one high yield expansion (or none, if they spawn close to each other and the enemy gets it. In this example, it makes the high yield expansion more of a contested expansion, which is I think what you wanted by "I want this" not "well I guess I'll take this".). Lost Temple is a 4 player map. Same with Metalopolis, and they have only two high yield expansions. XC has two, BS has two, and a lot of 1v1 maps made by iCCup and even other mapmakers have two. Some have one, like... I was going to say Scrap Station, but I'm not sure, there might be two...
I think I know what you want with this map. I think that if you want players to not just hang out at the middle of the map, then decrease the amount of minerals at the middle high yield expansions to 5, and change the outside expansions to normal expansions, or maybe even expansions with nine mineral fields (also remove the DRs there). This will make the middle expansions really important in mid game, but then they will get mined out, and the outside expansions (especially the one with nine minerals) will be there and won't get mined out as fast, so that they support later game better. This will make it so that the players are crazy for the high yield expansions, but then they get mined out, and the middle is less popular. Then, the map influences players to expand on the outsides (hopefully, this is all in theory).
OR
You could change the middle so that there is only one high yield expansion that is contested. This will definitely make players think "I want this". The player that succeeds in getting it would just force the other player to expand on the outside, thus getting your outside areas of the map more use.
You don't have to do either of those ideas, but I know that four high yield expansions is too many for a 1v1 map, and should be modified.
I like the lighting better than the previous image, is this in game or in the editor?
EDIT: Also, destructible cars? That's cool, I didn't know those were in the editor.
hmmm, I see your point on the high yields. I dont think I will change the middle area layout, but i will make some adjustments to the the gold expos. Thanks for explaining.
All my images are always taken in the editor, so they are always low res and the lighting and stuff never looks as good as it does in the game. I would do ingame shots for banners and pics other than the map views, but I have no idea how to take those kind of pics ingame.
Exploding cars arent in the editor (at leas from what I could see) so i edited stuff that was already in there to make them. I have to admit, it is slightly satisfying to blow cars in the game, especially with colossus.
|
You seemed unsure about the name "I ended up naming it Abandon"..
so I met that the name (or a variation with a catchy adjective) could fit with the rich minerals being a feature..
I admit I just like the title of c chaplin's great superstar debut: the gold rush (maybe one of his best to boot)...
I like unorthodox concepts showcased in melee maps and so I was just saying: how bout Goldrush? At the time I had read the thread while doing other things (boy the little grey cells always fail me).. so I had understood you had gotten rid of the idea...
by the by, still great eye candy.
Kudos for the general feel, I'd just add another pass (texture with low increment) to showcase the difference in low ground and low ground with resources (for instance), just cause it would make it even sweeter!
|
I've updated the map and some of the pics with changes to the gold expos as suggested by Antares777 (who i think was very right).
In the centre I have lowered the gold expansion to 7 min patches. As things tend to be more intense in the centre a higher income rate will help keep the pressure on. Though with 7 patches the expo will run out of steam a bit faster than usual. Maintaining a presence on the gold expo (even when depleted) is still important, depending on the match, as it is also a key area. So dropping the number of patches a bit didnt feel so bad and there is still enough minerals there to maintain extended action in that area. Though one less does mean that assuming someone hasnt won that area, it would go to a stale mate a bit sooner and the rest of the map would come into play.
The golds on the outside have now been changed to normal expos but with 9 patches. Partly to make them more attractive to take and ecourage wider map usage, and the slightly higher mineral amount in the expo means that whatever strategy is being employed, it could be sustained a little longer.
Overall the gold focuses a bit more around short term play whilst the blue+1 pushes more to long term. Obviously that may not be how they are used, but those were the ideas I was thinking of when making the change.
|
On December 19 2010 07:00 Archivian wrote:
I've updated the map and some of the pics with changes to the gold expos as suggested by Antares777 (who i think was very right).
In the centre I have lowered the gold expansion to 7 min patches. As things tend to be more intense in the centre a higher income rate will help keep the pressure on. Though with 7 patches the expo will run out of steam a bit faster than usual. Maintaining a presence on the gold expo (even when depleted) is still important, depending on the match, as it is also a key area. So dropping the number of patches a bit didnt feel so bad and there is still enough minerals there to maintain extended action in that area. Though one less does mean that assuming someone hasnt won that area, it would go to a stale mate a bit sooner and the rest of the map would come into play.
The golds on the outside have now been changed to normal expos but with 9 patches. Partly to make them more attractive to take and ecourage wider map usage, and the slightly higher mineral amount in the expo means that whatever strategy is being employed, it could be sustained a little longer.
Overall the gold focuses a bit more around short term play whilst the blue+1 pushes more to long term. Obviously that may not be how they are used, but those were the ideas I was thinking of when making the change.
Approved.
|
I REALLY like the size of this map. It's freaking awesome, just like in BW. The layout was good (even though i would like to see more terrain like smoke and less walls (more open spaces, you could do like in desert oasis in the middle of this map, instead of two XNTs on hills I would like smoke around a XNT to get more open space but still terrain to take advantage on).
I don't like 100% that there is _exactly_ 3 ways to the enemy. I would like more cross-pathing and stuff like that. But this map is better than all the maps in the map pool right now, no doubt about it!
Keep up the good work man
|
[B]On December 19 2010 05:09 Archivian wrote:
I would do ingame shots for banners and pics other than the map views, but I have no idea how to take those kind of pics ingame.
While in-game punch PrtScn (print screen) button. Images will land in folder:
C:\Users\your username\Documents\StarCraft II\Accounts\random number\random number\Screenshots
|
There isn't a PrtScn button on my laptop...
You guys have it ez
|
Just a little doodad-question - why is there lava coming through the ground?
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 19 2010 13:49 Johanaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2010 05:09 Archivian wrote:
I would do ingame shots for banners and pics other than the map views, but I have no idea how to take those kind of pics ingame. While in-game punch PrtScn (print screen) button. Images will land in folder: C:\Users\ your username\Documents\StarCraft II\Accounts\ random number\ random number\Screenshots
True, but I have seen some awesome Youtube videos of cameras floating over battlefields in game. Also How can I do angled camera shots? I cant move the camera beyond game view whn Im in the game, and I have no idea how people do that or if you can do that. Is there a way to make the ingame camera work the same as it does in the editor?
+ Show Spoiler +On December 19 2010 14:22 iGrok wrote:
Just a little doodad-question - why is there lava coming through the ground?
Do you mean in the chunks of wreckage? There is no lava, But I set the wreckage on fire to varying degrees, for looks and also its a light source (though i also added lights). Coz all the pics I put up are from a top down view, you cant really see the flickering flame or the rising smoke.
+ Show Spoiler +[B]On December 19 2010 15:20 Barrin wrote: Archi delivers yet another sweet looking map while making it look easy! I like the general layout ^_^ I think you are getting much better Just two things really. 1. The main ramp leading up into the natural is kinda small  I'd widen that at least 2 more pieces tbh. It's mostly just because of the large size of the map o.O 2. Even though the map is certainly rotational symmetry, the way you made the layout makes it seem distinctly reflection I haven't decided if this is even a bad thing yet though, though it might not be the best thing o.O
I'm neve too sure on how big a natural ramp is supposed to be. In this one there is enough space to fit 3 thors side by side, and with access from the backdoor to natural, I thought that would be big enough but is that too small?
Because I was trying a few things a little out of my comfort zone, I went for the saftey of making it reflective, that there is rotational symmitry to it wasn't planned tbh, it kind of just worked out that way. Additionally I made this in the same way I made Eerie Garden (mostly) I started with the middle and worked outwards, then did alot of cleaning up (an earlier version of this was all natural and Haven textures). Though the difference here is that in Eerie Garden everything was built off the centre, I didnt even know where the spawns would be until i got there. In this I knew the positions of the spawns and I knew what aspects I wanted to try and do (basically Eerie garden was very free-form where this is kinda half 'n'half).
My MOTM, entry is totally free form (am I allowed to post it up as a thread before entering it?) which might mean it wont win, but so far its made for something playable in testing. The map I am making at the moment is totally free-form as well and abit off the wall, so hopefully that should be up in a day or 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/P13dw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sfpcb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/HjbVe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Pl05L.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RDCLX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/EXUyG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3wvtL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/t1Ix4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nhJLQ.jpg)
