|
TPW Scars of Aiur 1.3
by IronManSC (aka IronMan)
Published on NA
(Search 'TPW Scars of Aiur' 1.3 on battle.net)
![[image loading]](http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/2733/scarsofaiur.jpg)
BEFORE: + Show Spoiler +
AFTER: + Show Spoiler +
Introduction:
If any of you remember my first map, Bel'Shir Walkway, you might recognize that the map and base layout are similar for Scars. I took into account the pros and cons from bel'shir walkway and I decided to expand on it and make it a little bigger. And so I created Scars. This is a overhaul, upgraded version of bel'shir walkway with a similar layout, but more bases and more open paths to go through.
Replay Pack: (from original layout, will get ones from scars of aiur soon)... mostly diamond and masters. I play a couple matches as well.
+ Show Spoiler +
Expansions and Aesthetics: (N/A)
+ Show Spoiler +
Size: 136x136 playable
Textures: Aiur
Players: 2
Bases: 12 (2 gold)
Rush Distance: 43 seconds from ramp to ramp
-There is one Xel'naga watch tower in the center, but there are paths to sneak around it.
-There is also LOS in the 9 and 3 bases at the door to prevent easy, instant exposure.
All testing, tips, feedback, and criticisms are welcome!
|
Wow, I really like this map. The expansion patterns seen good, no glaring flaws. I feel the texturing could use some refinement but that's about it.
|
Looks nice, good job on the texturing.
Can you make analyzer pics ? (If you don't have the program go get it, it's very usefull to benchmark your maps)
I think gold expo would be better on lowground instead of highground, and maybe add an highground path on the coast beetween 9' and 7', and LoSB on the attack paths :
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0B5OC.jpg)
|
I have the analyzer program. I've spent all day trying to figure it out (I have read several ways of trying to do it) and i just can't figure it out. Mabye i'm just dumb lol.
I Like the LOS wall in the center area. I will definitely take that in consideration, seeing that the middle bases are too exposed as of right now.
I need to ask however, what is the purpose of the high ground idea?
|
Hmmm, interesting ideas, fenX... I'm not sure I see the purpose of them though.
What I do now notice is that there seems to be a lack of attack paths through the middle, and they are all very close. I think it would be better to have some paths a little further out from the middle, but this space is fairly occupied by expos.
|
I don't think the middle is too "cramped" like you mention Gfire. Each choke in and around the middle are wide and large enough for zerg surrounds, but are also liable for protoss and terran armies as well. I think it's a relatively good size overall.
I could however remove some of the trees along the strips in the center to open it up a little more.
|
I don't mean that they aren't wide enough, just they are are all concentrated near the center. That is, there isn't a great opportunity for counter attacks and center control might be too important.
Perhaps if you cleared some of the outside trees, you could add more trees or gaps between the paths and the center high ground, making them slightly farther apart.
I do think they are wide enough, they look about the size as the lanes on meta, that should be good.
I am wondering, how far does the watchtower reach and how far can tanks reach from the high ground in the center?
|
On May 18 2011 15:33 IronManSC wrote:I need to ask however, what is the purpose of the high ground idea?
I don't like expansion with only one entrance (except main ofc), it feels bad both to defend and to attack.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PdZoO.jpg)
Let's say you are blue (terran) in that situation, your army control the center and you take the 9' expansion. Red (zerg) then send a small army to attack it, you send your army to defend but your workers have no way to escape and all die before your army get there, you successfuly defend your exp building at the cost of all your workers there but red can now go kill your third, leaving you no mining base up and forcing you to go all-in with your army.
If you have that escape route I suggested you can at least save your workers.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R0CLL.jpg)
Once again you are blue and you see red trying to secretly take the 9' expansion, you send your army to deny it, but it was a trap ! Red's army attack you from behind, your forces are trapped in that little pocket expansion and all die. If only they had an escape route some of them could have retreated to your base.
Not sure if that kind of scenarios are realistic, maybe not the best choices for expansions, but anyway it wouldn't hurt to have that option.
As for why make it highground : you don't have much space to work there, it's already the border of the map, separating a path using different ground levels takes less spaces than separating with a hole between 2 path on the same level.
|
Well, you could also solve my problem by making the addition, a new path from the isolated expo to the expo by the main... Perhaps the whole 9' base could be put on the high ground and a ramp with rocks could be added.
In this case the 9' would more likely be taken by the north player (3' by the south).
|
I like it 
especially that it should be played different with different races.
(zerg will be more likely to expand away, while T would expand to the middle.
only thing Im concerned with is the gold base. it seems a little too easy to take imo (at least if you play vs zerg)
|
am i the only one who thinks the map is fine the way it is right now and doesn't need any changes? 
currently you pretty much need to control the xnt and have 2 scouting units at the side paths if you want to avoid an army sneaking into your half of the map unnoticed. i don't think you require more attack paths than that.
i also don't have a problem with armies getting trapped at the side expansions. should have made sure you know you can win the battle before you attacked there, or know at least know where your opponent ist at
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On May 18 2011 16:26 fenX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2011 15:33 IronManSC wrote:I need to ask however, what is the purpose of the high ground idea? I don't like expansion with only one entrance (except main ofc), it feels bad both to defend and to attack. Let's say you are blue (terran) in that situation, your army control the center and you take the 9' expansion. Red (zerg) then send a small army to attack it, you send your army to defend but your workers have no way to escape and all die before your army get there, you successfuly defend your exp building at the cost of all your workers there but red can now go kill your third, leaving you no mining base up and forcing you to go all-in with your army. If you have that escape route I suggested you can at least save your workers. Once again you are blue and you see red trying to secretly take the 9' expansion, you send your army to deny it, but it was a trap ! Red's army attack you from behind, your forces are trapped in that little pocket expansion and all die. If only they had an escape route some of them could have retreated to your base. Not sure if that kind of scenarios are realistic, maybe not the best choices for expansions, but anyway it wouldn't hurt to have that option. As for why make it highground : you don't have much space to work there, it's already the border of the map, separating a path using different ground levels takes less spaces than separating with a hole between 2 path on the same level.
As terran you'll never expand that far away from your other bases because you're that immobile. So example one isn't legit. I also think that you won't get trapped at a sneaked expo there because you won't move in with you full army (send a small force and leave the rest outside awaiting the rescue force of your opponent - counter trap).
I agree on the LoSBs added close to the mid but currently i wouldn't add that passage you suggest. Imagine tanks up there will small forces engage your HY / bottom expo.
So i would say the map is fine and currently might only need small tweaks. GJ btw Ironman. Your best map so far
|
On May 18 2011 17:33 lefix wrote:am i the only one who thinks the map is fine the way it is right now and doesn't need any changes?
I think it's fine, I just threw some ideas, may be worth trying, may not.
On May 18 2011 17:55 dezi wrote:
As terran you'll never expand that far away from your other bases because you're that immobile. So example one isn't legit.
If you siege your army at the center XNT (wich is good for terran) that expansion is the closest. Anyway the point is your workers have no way to escape when you expand there.
On May 18 2011 17:55 dezi wrote:I also think that you won't get trapped at a sneaked expo there because you won't move in with you full army (send a small force and leave the rest outside awaiting the rescue force of your opponent - counter trap).
Same problem then, the rescue force has no escape route if there's a counter trap, unless you have another force waiting for a counter-counter-trap.
Is the map on NA or on EU ? (tried to open it in the editor from EU but didn't find it, so I guess it's either locked or on other server)
|
What exactly the purpose of the curtain in the middle paths? All I see it doing is making map splits even more likely.
|
The map is on NA (I don't know how to put it on EU unfortunately), unless I can trust a pro, popular map maker here to put it on EU or mabye another server as well.
It's also worth mentioning, that at the 9 and 3 o'clock bases, there is small high ground next to it. It is pathable for siege tanks, thors, colossi, or whatever else. Only siege tanks are able to hit a nexus/hatchery/CC from there. The rest can hit a few workers, a geyser, and mabye static defense.
@dezi:
Thanks! I think it is my best map, compared to Bel'Shir Walkway and Bel'Shir Highlands, where I completely overdid it on the layout and textures (and not using bel'shir tile set for once lol). I decided to just make something more simple without thinking about it too much.
This map is similar to bel'shir walkway, but much bigger, and I think it's worth another try to submit it to the map competition in a month or so
|
I've had several tests done and a diamond random noted that for whatever race, the 3rd (whether in the corner or in the middle) is a bit too hard to take and is too risky. This may cause zerg to stay on 2-base for quite some time, and make terran a little immobile regardless of which one they take. Also the idea of replacing the LOSB at the 9 and 3 bases with destructible rocks.
Thoughts?
|
![[image loading]](http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6758/mapremix.jpg)
In this variation it's easier to hold the third so long as you block the back hallway. I think it would work best with the gold set a level below, but playing with the surrounding terrain may make it work as a high-ground too.
The problem with a high-ground gold, though, is that terran can make more effective use of the high ground with siege tanks. Being so far from the base, however, if they try to take it too soon they can be punished.
Just a thought, hope it helps. Always remember to be thinking of where the player must position his army to defend the third. It most cases it shouldn't be a perfect defense, unless it's a macro map. Xel'Naga is a perfect example of how to balance. Attacks can through the back hallway or through the un-blocked ramp of the sunken third, but defense is also doable as well.
EDIT: one benifit to keeping the gold high-ground, is that a bold player can shoot down the back-hallway defenses from the safety of the high-ground if the defender does not secure the gold platform. It would add a small measure of volatility by creating a high-risk high-reward attack possibility.
One problem is that you are forced to secure the gold platform to prevent SCV kills from the highground. One option is to block the ramp on the enemy attack path to with destructible rocks, allowing players to take a swift third, but forcing them to hold map control to retain the third later on. Maybe that would work?
Hope the new design sparks some creativity, in either case. I like the map.
|
Definitely a wonderful consideration Foxy! I've been very skeptical of the those bases and have been trying to figure out a better solution. I will keep this in mind.
|
I updated the post, just making sure you see it. :D
|
I read it I've been making minor tweaks so far (I haven't published the 1.1 update yet. I want to get as many fixes as possible first)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/1843/scars90.jpg)
