I'm a fairly new member to the TLForums but have been keeping a strong eye on the Strategy and Mapping subforums. Today, I'd like to present to you my 4 player FFA map: Uplands.

My other map(s):
Avalon Keep

Spawns: Four corners
Size: 152x152 (playable)
XNT: 4
Tileset: Custom Jungle
Expansions: 16
- 12x 8 min 2 vesp
- 4x 6 min 1 rich vesp

Updated 03/19/2011

Blocked back door to natural
Made second small natural ramp into back entrance to Third
Added rocks to main & Third back doors
Removed high ground between bases and 3 XNT

+ Show Spoiler [Top Down] +

+ Show Spoiler [Angled View] +

+ Show Spoiler [Main] +

+ Show Spoiler [Natural] +

+ Show Spoiler [4 bases] +

+ Show Spoiler [XNT Coverage] +

+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer] +

Any suggestions for doodads, design changes, textures, anything would be appreciated

+ Show Spoiler [Screens (old version)] +

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

March 15 2011 04:38 GMT

I'm going to have to examine this more for an exhaustive critique, but here are my initial thoughts.

First, it's a bit large. I'm not sure if this was your intent. I like the thinking behind the XWT layout, but they're already encroaching on the naturals with their vision range. I would consider cutting a strip out along the equator and meridian thereby smushing everything closer together and shrinking the middle, and changing the XWTs.

Second, if the goal is to promote simcity for a slightly more vulnerable natural, it doesn't quite work like that. It takes three buildings to completely wall a ramp. Are you asking for 9 buildings for a secure natural, all spread out? Three cannons for a protoss forge FE, possibly 3 bunkers for a terran? What would actually happen is a delayed FE like a sentry expand, which would still feel very precarious. You'd need a lot of spotting and quick reaction to make sure you don't get caught by guys running up a ramp you didn't expect. I like the different entrances in theory. You could block with more rocks perhaps to have a less dramaticly difficult natural.

Hope this helps.

[edit] I quite like the look of it, too.

[edit 2] I didn't realize it was only 152x152, it looks big. The naturals are so vulnerable to attack from below the mineral line, which is especially bad with tanks. I guess you can keep it this size and use some negative space to prevent tanking. But that eats up so much ground.

Magrath

Canada292 Posts

March 15 2011 04:46 GMT

Whoever spawns clockwise to the opponent in close positions is at quite a disadvantage. They can pelt the workers the natural mineral line once they have high ground sight. The XWTs can be controlled to keep an eye on any flanks from the enemy other than going the super long way around.

oneil

Canada73 Posts

March 15 2011 13:35 GMT

I do see the vulnerability of the natural's mineral line, and struggled with pulling it forward or adding dead space behind the cliff. I opted to leave it as is and get some feedback first. I could easily see the 4 watchtowers being replaced with a central one overlooking the middle paths.

Also, The initial plan had destructible rocks at the natural's backdoor, essentially making the now small expansion a late third (would then be 8min2vesp). It also reduced the routes into the natural to the two small ramps.

Finally, I really like having the two small ramps at the natural but do understand the difficulty in walling both off early on. A conceptual change for this would be linking the natural to the 4th via a small path (with or without rocks/LOS blockers):
+ Show Spoiler +

oneil

Canada73 Posts

March 19 2011 06:20 GMT

Updated OP with new design! See first post for changelog

Feedback?

Ketch

Netherlands7285 Posts

March 19 2011 06:25 GMT

I like it.
The only thing that strikes me as possibly unbalanced is that you hold a slight advantage if you spawn counterclockwise, eg. You at 5 and Your opponent at 7, you will be able to take the "fourth / bigger third" way easier.

FlopTurnReaver

Switzerland1980 Posts

March 19 2011 06:40 GMT

Seriously, why does every map these days need to have a second entrance into the nat? Or a second and a third? Or a second, a third and a second into the main?

Archivian

United Kingdom362 Posts

March 19 2011 11:46 GMT

I quite like the map overall, though it might be a bit too big for rushes, but i think would be fun otherwise. (Im guessing it takes about 1min diagonal, and 50secs top to bottom (game time) spawnramp-2-spawnramp with a marine - XNC is 42secs, i've made alot of maps which are both longer and shorter than that time and it seems aiming for that time at the outside, at least roughly, its a good guide 2-4 player maps)
Also i think a back door on the nat and on the main is too much, i think maybe lose the one on the nat. The ridge in front of the main should probably go, tanks on that ridge would be pretty harsh to deal with, though keep the backdoor on the main.

As far as doodads go, i would say add more trees (though i tend to use too many), or try to make everything seem fuller in some way (maybe lighting might help?). And maybe do more with the centre asthetics, it feels like something is missing there.

Other than that I do like this map.

oneil

Canada73 Posts

March 23 2011 18:52 GMT

Thanks for your input guys! Only one comment since the posted changes so I broke it down into various points:

+ Show Spoiler +

I've only tested this map with insane AI, but the rush distances are acceptable. It's on the bigger size obviously, but I've still been able to rush successfully. How it would impact attack/build timings I'm not sure..

+ Show Spoiler +

Also i think a back door on the nat and on the main is too much, i think maybe lose the one on the nat.

Just in case you didn't notice, there is the big nat backdoor and a smaller second one leading to the third. The main and the small nat backdoors are shared. You need to break down 1 rock for access to the nat, and a second set of rocks to get into the main.

Perhaps the rocks at the third should have more health than those at the big nat backdoor?

Regardless, my reason for defending the main's back door is look how attractive the third looks if you break the rocks down: easy reinforcements. I don't think of it only so much as how the enemy can exploit it, more as to how you can as well.

+ Show Spoiler +

The ridge in front of the main should probably go, tanks on that ridge would be pretty harsh to deal with, though keep the backdoor on the main.

I've changed it a bit and checked with siege range and have made it so half the third's ramp is not within range, and the nat's ramp is completely out of range. Next thread update will reflect this.

+ Show Spoiler +

As far as doodads go, i would say add more trees (though i tend to use too many), or try to make everything seem fuller in some way (maybe lighting might help?). And maybe do more with the centre asthetics, it feels like something is missing there.

I didn't go crazy with doodads because I knew the map mechanics were still broken. I don't want to spend a long time texturing and doodading only to redo a full section's terrain

iGrok

United States5142 Posts

March 23 2011 19:18 GMT

#10

I don't know about balance (haven't played it/really studied it), and the texturing/doodading is good-not-great.

But I absolutely love the shape. That spiral is really cool looking :3

oneil

Canada73 Posts

March 24 2011 14:19 GMT

#11

On March 19 2011 15:25 Ketch wrote:
I like it.
The only thing that strikes me as possibly unbalanced is that you hold a slight advantage if you spawn counterclockwise, eg. You at 5 and Your opponent at 7, you will be able to take the "fourth / bigger third" way easier.

I disagree: If you spawn at 5 with enemy at 7, and you go for the middle right expansion, the enemy only has to knock down his rocks and take his tucked-in third, and can then safely get the middle-left fourth.

If you knock down your rocks at position 5 to cap your close third, you've created another attack route for your enemy.