|
Mar Zera
Overveiw Image
+ Show Spoiler +
I wanted to make a 4 player map valid for 1v1 where your choice of third expo would be different every game depending on spawn locations (mostly).
Part of the concept is that nat ramp points toward the map centre which makes for very similar distances between all four bases.
I consider this map heavily under construction. Please hail your comments of criticism over me. I want to hear it all (although I prefer comments on gameplay over comments on visuals). I'm no way near done with texturing, doodads, etc but worried about how the features and base layout will play out.
I've made several versions before recreating the map from scratch. I left the older map thread called CarZera.
Features
- Rotational symetry. One third on each side of your main should be equally attractive, although not identical, which allows for some more dynamic gameplay than a 'simple' mirrored symetry map would do.
- 4 high ground areas with two wide ramps each clutter in the map middle. Each of these hold a High Yield vespene geyser.
- Xel Naga towers overlook the paths to thirds and the short main-to-main lane goes right by the tower. The tower does not spot the absolute centre, but most of the lane leading to your nat ramp. The vision ends right outside the chokes of the thirds.
- Short air- and cliff-walk-distance from nat to thirds.
- Both possible thirds have a pathable high ground drop-zone just next to the mineral line.
Facts
Players: 4
Map size: 158x158 (playable)
Resoruces: 16 regular bases, 4 HY vespene geysers around the centre
XelNaga Towers: 4 around the centre
Short main-to-main: ~140
Short nat-to-nat: ~100
Cross main-to-main: 163
Cross nat-to-nat: 121
Analyser
+ Show Spoiler +Summary+ Show Spoiler +Shortest Paths+ Show Spoiler +The analyser ignores some doodad footprints by the towers, so the short rush distance is slightly longer. Units cant pass between the tower and the cliff behind it. Main to main, short ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/CqXZu.jpg) Nat to nat, short ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qb6rr.jpg) Main to main, across ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/93ESu.jpg) Nat to nat, across ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vUREe.jpg)
Detail Images
+ Show Spoiler +Mains, nat, thirds ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/q5ewK.jpg) Middle ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/y9l1p.jpg) Pathing Overview ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/NEfm4.jpg) Thirds and tower ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/K3sBU.jpg) Close-up on tower and middle high ground ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/j93P0.jpg)
Published on EU as Mar Zera
|
United States10401 Posts
the natural looks a big small... cramped i guess and with only a very small ramp leading to the outside, its quite easy to get a contain. i recommend that a backdoor ramp added going to the third...
i question the idea of a high yield, dont know how that will affect gameplay much other than having less workers on other stuff xD keep it until something comes up.
overall, a very respectable map.
|
On April 15 2011 03:54 FlaShFTW wrote:
the natural looks a big small...
Those thirds look really hard to take, either one.
This map also need some areas opened up alot, its all tiny corridors and the middle is SO cramped.
|
I disagree with the map needing to be opened up; We can't conform every map to a set of ideals, we need to experiment. There are so many paths in the middle, but albeit them being small they incorporate a lot of high ground as well.
You would be much better off doing multiple flanks in this map rather than having more army at one spot - at that's a different game than what we currently see on today's maps.
I'm not too sure how I feel about the high yield vespene geysers. A terran could easily block off some of those smaller center paths with a planetary and then mine out the gas. That, or drop a CC and then lift it up after harvesting it all. It is much much harder for a P/Z player to drop a primary building (moreso for P) in the middle of the map. Long distance mining would not make it worthwhile.
|
On April 15 2011 04:41 oneil wrote:
I disagree with the map needing to be opened up; We can't conform every map to a set of ideals, we need to experiment. There are so many paths in the middle, but albeit them being small they incorporate a lot of high ground as well.
You would be much better off doing multiple flanks in this map rather than having more army at one spot - at that's a different game than what we currently see on today's maps.
I agree with this so much that I just shed tears. Thank you sir.
Thank you.
|
On April 15 2011 04:41 oneil wrote:
I disagree with the map needing to be opened up; We can't conform every map to a set of ideals, we need to experiment. There are so many paths in the middle, but albeit them being small they incorporate a lot of high ground as well.
You would be much better off doing multiple flanks in this map rather than having more army at one spot - at that's a different game than what we currently see on today's maps.
I'm not too sure how I feel about the high yield vespene geysers. A terran could easily block off some of those smaller center paths with a planetary and then mine out the gas. That, or drop a CC and then lift it up after harvesting it all. It is much much harder for a P/Z player to drop a primary building (moreso for P) in the middle of the map. Long distance mining would not make it worthwhile.
sorry thats just not gonna cut it, 4 flanks sound great but they are still utterly useless when P can cut them all off one by one with like 4 FF.
Currently playing Z on this map would be an absolute nightmare. The thirds are so far away, they are tankable, and imagine trying to engage a tank marine push when set up in any of these corridors. Plus the construction of the natural makes agressive pylon placement/cannoning the FE SOOO easy.
|
Thanks for spilling your thoughts, they are welcome.
I might end up doing the middle less experimental ... The reason I put the geysers there was to encurage expanding closer to the map middle, since all bases are on the sides, and putting golds there would be too many expos on the map for players to stomach. I'll look into making the lanes in the middle wider, at least.
My fear that the thirds are too far from the nat grows with the direction of this discussion. I like the general design philosophy to encourage all three races to take advantage of,certain features or the layout .. such as chokes for P, ramps for T, open areas for T, etc. In giving them an equal handful amount of LOVE .. and balance that to the best of my ability, by iterations, over time.
@oneil - Interresitng point. I don't want the map to be too experimental, though. I'll try to keep experiments in the low level details, while going the safer path in the high level map design. I do realize, however, that I need to bring something new that pushes the boundaries of the common expetations some, or my map will just be one of many with nothing that stands out.
Do you think one HY geyser is worth mining on it's own, at all? 'Hypotetically - a way to encourage this would be adding gold minerals in the nat, that can be distance mined. Due to that boost in minerals, a hatch/nexus/CC is wortth the investment to mine that HY vespene.
@FlaShFTW - Thanks. Backdoors to the nat was intended form the start, but I chickened out of it, since I need two of them leading out to each of the thirds (or one player might get too much of an advantage in close positions beacuse of the rotational symetry, you know). Thats two more ramps and rocks to the nat. Perhaps that would solve some of the problems I seem to have, though .. what do you think?
@sob3k thansk for honest feedback. The thirds are 4 creep tumors away form the nat, currently. I know this wouldn't sovle everything, but what about two backdoors with rocks to the nat?
Something like this..
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/FVUSO.jpg)
|
The problem with the double backdoors are:
1) it makes the nat much less secure
2) it turns the thirds from very far away into superrr close
3) it makes the nat tankable from the third (big problem)
The single HY gasses are an original idea, I've got no idea how they will play out. I would still try to open up the center a bit, but they are going to be very hard for anyone to hold and I'm not sure people will bother with so many other bases open in a 4 player map (they may be only possible to hold with some nasty pfort abuse...).
|
@sob3k - I know. I said "something like this"  Its good points you bring up and it's what I want to avoid too.
1) Asuming it's too easy to contain now, that would be a fresh change to the better, unless I overdo it. If I move the extra ramps closer to the main ramp, it'll be easier to defend all.
2) If I move the backdoor ramps closer to the main ramp, the distance will be fine.
3) Yes, that's something I don't want. The backdoor ramps are moved further away from the nat mineral line as well.
Nat idea
Creep tumors are put on the map to display nat-to-third distance clearly. Tank range are the white dotted lines. Too big nat? Too chokey for Z? Terran OP main ramp layout?
+ Show Spoiler +
Middle idea
Does this looks balanced takign all races into consideration? Easier now to defend the geyser on your left side? Close position imbalance? Tank heaven?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm not an expert but this map looks like a nirvana for siege tanks...
|
This looks really cool, I like it a lot except for a few points.
-Might want to open up the middle just a tad.
-Mains look a bit smaller. Might want to reallocated space so the natural's pushed a bit further.
-Single geyser in the middle is stupid. Exposed even for a normal expo and there's little point in getting an expo just for gas.
-Actually, it looks absolutely huge. Shrink it down to at least 140x140.
|
I like that middle, look interesting and maybe we will get that interesting BW esque super lategame with tons of gas and no mins.
The nat idea is better, actually pretty solid, the only thing I see that could be a bit iffy is the fact that a T could potentially siege behind the rocks in the nat and cover the entrances to the thirds and the nat at the same time. I don't think this is TOO big of an issue though as the thirds would still have the side entrances.
Man that Nat is a fucking weird shape with those bizzare protrusions...what exacty is your idea behind them?
If you went with a nat like the one above (which I think is OK), I might widen the main ramp and perhaps make the rock sides single wide...but I'm not sure.
You know what, looking at the original pictures I actually think my worry about the thirds was kind of an overreaction...I think that design could actually work out fine, the player just has to pick a direction and go with it. Holding both potential thirds looks really hard but going either left or right looks doable. I was ignoring the watchtower placement, which will help you immenseley in defending that third base. With the new more open center design once you get onto 4base in a direction you will actually be very secure.
I would shrink the red circled blockers to slightly open these corridors (allow Z to defend VS collo/FF marine/tanks)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FiPUL.jpg)
|
I agree that the map looks a little clogged. Adding some breathing room would probably be beneficial, most notably through the paths that lead to the thirds and in the center between the ramps to the high ground platforms. Siege tanks could ruin someone's day.
The overall concept looks like fun.
|
Gonna echo sentiments that the middle is a little too choked. Siege tanks and FFs would dominate the center. Nice looking map though so far
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/lyWpJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Gnbx9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/lPqXj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qmL4E.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/swhPh.jpg)
