|
-Banner by Johanaz-
Another entry for the TL Contest. Its a remake from Judicator Caste. I didnt like the old version all that much so i changed quite a bit. Also i used Blizzard esque Texture.
This wont be a TPW Map because its quite experimental with the bridges and the shape. Setting a certain standard to our teammaps this didnt made it, also Judicator will be no TPW map anymore.
Changes:
+ Show Spoiler +- Map is smaller overall - remade the top left and bottom right area - made it more pleasant to the eye, judicator was really hectic - moved third is towards natural a bit Old Overview: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hT66fl.jpg)
General:
+ Show Spoiler +Mapname: Through the Never
Uploaded: EU
Player: 2
Playable Bounds: 135x152
Bases: 10
XWT's: 2
Rocks: 2
Main/Main: 159
Nat/Nat: 114
Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler +
Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
your Country52797 Posts
What I don't like is the split map scenario that will happen in the late game.
|
The third is easy to take, but the true problem lies in what TehTemplar said. If you draw a horizontal line through the middle-games be long.
|
I really, really like this layout, besides the split map issue. The interplay between open and chokes and the high ground diagonals is just fun.
Sadly, I can't really think of an easy fix for split map scenario. It needs some sort of central bases or a possibility of expanding into the opposite half to really fix it. Maybe if you push the fifth towards the opposite main a tad and then make it a high ground with another ramp leading off on the other side of the xel'naga tower (so the players can come in from both sides easier) it could work.
Overall, a very solid map though. And I love the aesthetics. I always wanted to use the typhon set but could never get it to work right. Nice job.
|
Ohmygodthislookslikedestination!!
|
On October 06 2011 10:09 FlopTurnReaver wrote:Ohmygodthislookslikedestination!!
|
On October 06 2011 10:33 Mereel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 10:09 FlopTurnReaver wrote:Ohmygodthislookslikedestination!!
That is definitely a good thing, but the only similarity I can find is the two bridges in the middle. I like this though! My only problem is that there is really only one map split- every game will be the same expansion patter. This is not necessarily a horrible thing, but it is something to keep in mind.
|
If you did want to change the whole "split map" scenario then the easiest method I can see would be to open up a passage between the natural expansions and the expansions directly above and below them, possible covered by destructible rocks similar to the backdoor passages in Xel'Naga Caverns and it would give another option on where to expand to a Third instead of it being so clearly defined.
Your overall spacing of things looks really nice though.
|
I have a feeling Metallica might come around claiming copyright one of these days...
|
Not a very engaging layout, for me. There's just not a whole lot to... do. You have essentially no choices in expanding, and there are too many interconnected routes to make any one spot worth holding on to. I know there's a high ground... but if you're there, someone can threaten your 5th and your main and having been at the high ground did nothing for you. Ditto 4th and 3rd. To me it seems like you'll have to constantly watch all the paths.
I don't really like that the towers are unreliable to watch for drops at the natural (that can fly at the edge and dodge them), and that avoiding one or the other is easy. Only if you control both does it provide "security".
|
On October 06 2011 14:02 Fishgle wrote:
I have a feeling Metallica might come around claiming copyright one of these days...
i dont think so^^
and i dont see any problem with the one way expand layout or the split map, its just what it is.
i know the trend goes towards 2 expand options after the natural but why should every map be like that. in bw it was standard to have one expand layout.
|
On October 06 2011 22:38 Mereel wrote:
and i dont see any problem with the one way expand layout or the split map, its just what it is.
i know the trend goes towards 2 expand options after the natural but why should every map be like that. in bw it was standard to have one expand layout.
Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map != one expand layout.
Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map = bad.
|
On October 06 2011 22:45 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 22:38 Mereel wrote:
and i dont see any problem with the one way expand layout or the split map, its just what it is.
i know the trend goes towards 2 expand options after the natural but why should every map be like that. in bw it was standard to have one expand layout.
Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map != one expand layout. Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map = bad.
its not bad, just different.
|
On October 06 2011 22:54 Mereel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 22:45 Sea_Food wrote:On October 06 2011 22:38 Mereel wrote:
and i dont see any problem with the one way expand layout or the split map, its just what it is.
i know the trend goes towards 2 expand options after the natural but why should every map be like that. in bw it was standard to have one expand layout.
Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map != one expand layout. Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map = bad. its not bad, just different.
Well with that attitude you can just give up hopes for blizz adding this map to the map pool, as Blizzard stated that the reason lost temple was changed to shattered temple is because they did not like how easy the map was to split in half.
|
On October 06 2011 23:04 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 22:54 Mereel wrote:On October 06 2011 22:45 Sea_Food wrote:On October 06 2011 22:38 Mereel wrote:
and i dont see any problem with the one way expand layout or the split map, its just what it is.
i know the trend goes towards 2 expand options after the natural but why should every map be like that. in bw it was standard to have one expand layout.
Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map != one expand layout. Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map = bad. its not bad, just different. Well with that attitude you can just give up hopes for blizz adding this map to the map pool, as Blizzard stated that the reason lost temple was changed to shattered temple is because they did not like how easy the map was to split in half.
Pretty sure i'd take shattered (not to mention shakuras) over this map any day if my intention was to go for a split map game. Just saying.
|
On October 06 2011 22:38 Mereel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 14:02 Fishgle wrote:
I have a feeling Metallica might come around claiming copyright one of these days... i dont think so^^ and i dont see any problem with the one way expand layout or the split map, its just what it is. i know the trend goes towards 2 expand options after the natural but why should every map be like that. in bw it was standard to have one expand layout.
I completely agree with this.
My complaint about the map stems from the fact that all the terrain is so amorphous, strategically. The towers are a very contrived way to add some kind of strategic shape to your army positioning. Other than that, this map is all about anticipating enemy attack movements and positioning to intercept--and there are a lot of attack paths.
In picturing a lategame on this map, I see both people at 4 or 5 bases with attacks moving back and forth between the sides. At no point does anyone "gain ground" or "give ground", it's just a vague role assignment of who's attacking or defending from moment to moment. If you're attacking, you try to dodge their army and get to a place where you can do damage and force a fight on bad terms for them. If you're defending, you try to meet it and force a good engagement. And none of the terrain really defines this differently, it's all just running around (it seems to me).
It's like playing halo on a map that consists for a huge square room with 9 pillars dividing it into 16 intersecting alleys. It has no shape.
(It's not that bad, but I'm just trying to make a point.)
If I was going to make a change to try and fix this, I would create more/an extension of the high ground further into the center so that a strong army there really commands the access to your nat and 3rd.
|
On October 06 2011 22:54 Mereel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 22:45 Sea_Food wrote:On October 06 2011 22:38 Mereel wrote:
and i dont see any problem with the one way expand layout or the split map, its just what it is.
i know the trend goes towards 2 expand options after the natural but why should every map be like that. in bw it was standard to have one expand layout.
Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map != one expand layout. Very easy to secure half of all bases on the map = bad. its not bad, just different.
I'd say it is generally bad because (obviously no personal offense):
a) Conceptually every game will lack the expansion diversity especially since it does't have any gold bases.. It doesn't offer the nice creativity and variety like we see on maps like Shakuras or Shattered Temple.
b) The single expansion line can lead to imbalance because Zerg always likes to expand defensively (increasing distance between opponent) and Protoss/Terran mostly like to expand aggressively (shortening aggression distance). You can't balance the three races if there is only one direction to expand unless the expansions are placed extremely carefully and they can work for all races.
To use an example, I think the third and fourth are very nice for Zerg because it decreases the rush distance. However Protoss and Terran don't have a third where they can apply pressure (Shattered, Shakuras, XNC) which might leave them at a slight disadvantage the way the game is currently balanced.
|
On October 07 2011 07:26 monitor wrote:
To use an example, I think the third and fourth are very nice for Zerg because it decreases the rush distance. However Protoss and Terran don't have a third where they can apply pressure (Shattered, Shakuras, XNC) which might leave them at a slight disadvantage the way the game is currently balanced.
I don´t get it. I see plenty of expansions where T can apply pressure. You said it: a slight disadvantage the way the game is currently balanced.
Well, maybe the map has longevity enough to fit a lot of different future balance scenarios. To me it´s more important to aim for fun games, I certainly don´t mind giving Zerg a slight advantage if there even is one.
|
On October 07 2011 09:04 Johanaz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 07:26 monitor wrote:
To use an example, I think the third and fourth are very nice for Zerg because it decreases the rush distance. However Protoss and Terran don't have a third where they can apply pressure (Shattered, Shakuras, XNC) which might leave them at a slight disadvantage the way the game is currently balanced. I don´t get it. I see plenty of expansions where T can apply pressure. You said it: a slight disadvantage the way the game is currently balanced. Well, maybe the map has longevity enough to fit a lot of different future balance scenarios. To me it´s more important to aim for fun games, I certainly don´t mind giving Zerg a slight advantage if there even is one.
I didn't mean to write that Terran absolutely couldn't apply pressure, obviously they still can. What I am saying is that on a map like Shakuras Plateau, Terran can expand towards the opponent which makes it easier to apply pressure and avoid open space. Zerg has the option of expanding away from the opponent and they get open space because of it. This map doesn't offer those choices which are part of what makes Shakuras such a popular map.
|
Nice!
The Zel'naga towers would be essential to holding a 3rd and 4th. Maybe a bit terran favored with them tanks?
Nice looking map BTW
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/44r4H.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l2kinl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BLdAYl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ub2J5l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GhZCTl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uCycul.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/arFI4l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4Ub3xl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eMO9ol.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aeFj4l.jpg)
