|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cEAAA.jpg)
Orbital is a 4p map intended for 1v1 play. The map architecture is designed to encourage frequent expanding an macro-style of play without prohibiting strong 2-base timing sort of play. Much of the economic design of Orbital Station is inspired by LaLuSh's insightful post, "Analysis of Macro".
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gDOU3.jpg)
Several features make Orbital Station unique as a melee map, including:
1. Mineral patches contain 30% less minerals than typical (1050 instead of 1500).
2. The main and natural have 2 extra mineral patches.
+ Show Spoiler +These first two changes are intended to lengthen out the time it takes the players to saturate their first 2 bases, while simultaneously decreasing the duration that a player can remain on only 1 or 2 bases. In testing, this has encouraged frequent expanding and macro-style of play, discouraged 1-base all-in play-styles (because the window of effectiveness has been shortened), but still allowed for interesting 2-base aggression styles.
3. There are major attack paths between opponents: a wide central low ground path; a narrow high-ground path; and a debris-protected side path into the back a likely 3rd base.
4. Players cannot spawn horizontally; they can only spawn vertically or diagonally.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
The map is roughly the size of Tal'Darim Altar LE.
Orbital Station is currently only on the NA server. I've also submitted this map for entry into the Map of the Month #5 competition. Please test it out with your friends and let me know what you think!
Map of the Month #5 Thread
|
Why 1050 instead of 1000?
|
the legion of bloody encounters will liven the contrastsof this great layout!
<3"+ Show Spoiler +lengthen out the time it takes the players to saturate their first 2 bases, while simultaneously decreasing the duration that a player can remain on only 1 or 2 bases
if i may:
this map is obviously contending for motmt#5
|
United Arab Emirates660 Posts
On May 08 2011 08:33 ElOhTeeBee wrote:
Why 1050 instead of 1000?
Probably to force players to expand more thus maybe making the games less cheesy?.
|
this map looks really long and awkward in cross spots. that said, i like the mineral change... how has it faired with your tests or other peoples? gl in motm^
|
i think it needs a new name, since theres already 'Scrap Station' and 'Orbital Divide'
also the closespawn positions are a little too close
|
On May 08 2011 15:30 EcstatiC wrote:
i think it needs a new name, since theres already 'Scrap Station' and 'Orbital Divide'
also the closespawn positions are a little too close
I agree.
Tell that to the guy who made metalopolis and shattered temple.  You can't spawn horizontally if that's what you're talking about.
|
On May 08 2011 08:33 ElOhTeeBee wrote:
Why 1050 instead of 1000?
Because 70% of 1500 is 1050. The actual reason I went with 30% is because after lots and lots and lots of testing, it just felt the best. Any less made bases feel like the mined out way too fast, especially for Terrans, and any more didn't feel like it encouraged expanding enough. The difference between 1050 and 1000 is probably not going to affect things too much (500 minerals at main and nat bases, 400 at others), but I liked a good round 30% rather than 1/3. Just a matter of preference I suppose.
On May 08 2011 09:00 WniO wrote:
this map looks really long and awkward in cross spots. that said, i like the mineral change... how has it faired with your tests or other peoples? gl in motm^
The cross positions are obviously the farthest away and have a very different feel from vertical spawns, mainly because of the available attack paths. The central path gets favored a lot more, but in testing players often take the gold expansions in these positions and so pushes often come through those platforms as well. Also, the map seems to generate a lot of interesting drop/nydus/warp-in harassment play which makes things really interesting.
I'll see if I can't dig up some of the replays from testing so people see the map in action. But of course, test it out with your friends and let me know what you think!
On May 08 2011 15:30 EcstatiC wrote:
i think it needs a new name, since theres already 'Scrap Station' and 'Orbital Divide'
I have a difficult time coming up with names for maps, so any suggestions would be helpful. The current name reflects two of the maps that inspired the design, which you rightly guessed, but some of the design is also inspired by Match Point. Anyway, any name suggestions would be helpful, tho it'll probably remain named Orbital Station until the MotM#5 is over.
Thanks for all your replies and input guys!
|
On May 09 2011 00:12 SpaceYeti wrote:Because 70% of 1500 is 1050. The actual reason I went with 30% is because after lots and lots and lots of testing, it just felt the best. Any less made bases feel like the mined out way too fast, especially for Terrans, and any more didn't feel like it encouraged expanding enough. The difference between 1050 and 1000 is probably not going to affect things too much (500 minerals at main and nat bases, 400 at others), but I liked a good round 30% rather than 1/3. Just a matter of preference I suppose.
...Oh. That would explain that. For some reason, I was reading 30% as 1/3rd...
In a weak effort to provide more meaningful input: This map seems rather tightly packed. Not a lot of room for flanking maneuvers. I'd have to see the analyzer data to be sure... well, slightly less unsure, anyway.
|
Been a long time since I opened up the editor, but in light of the TL Map Contest announcement, here's an upload of the sc2 map-analyzer data:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Iscgvh.jpg)
Note: There are no horizontal spawns.
Rest of the results:
http://imgur.com/a/84wUd#Iscgv
I'm thinking about changing the minerals in main and natural. Currently there are 10 patches, but each patch has 30% fewer minerals per patch. This means the main and natural take a little longer to saturate, but also means they mine our much faster (this was my attempted solution to LaLuSh's Macro Dilemma). This should encourage players to expand and make 1-2 base timings that involve cutting workers less formidable, tho it does change some build timings.
Please help me out by indicating how you think I should treat the minerals at the main and natural:
Poll: How should I make the minerals in Main and Natural?Leave as is -- 10 patches, 30% less minerals per patch. (7) 64% Blizzard Standard -- 8 patches, 1500 minerals per patch. (4) 36% Compromise -- 8 patches, 30% less per patch. (0) 0% 11 total votes Your vote: How should I make the minerals in Main and Natural? (Vote): Leave as is -- 10 patches, 30% less minerals per patch.
(Vote): Compromise -- 8 patches, 30% less per patch.
(Vote): Blizzard Standard -- 8 patches, 1500 minerals per patch.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
If you want to submit it to the TL contest, then go with Blizzard. Otherwise leave it as is.
|
If the purpose of the map was to use Lalush-worthy minerals (something we haven't fully explored at all since the metagame has pushed beyond that analysis for now), you shouldn't change it. I would make a new (possibly similar) map if you want to submit for the contest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XNV5w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P4sUW.jpg)
