|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P8VyM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f3bwM.jpg)
Cross spawn only, either SE vs NW or SW vs NE.
The SW vs NE spawn setup has longer nat2nat distance and has main+ nat one level higher, but should play similar to the other spawn setup on two bases.
Stats
+ Show Spoiler +
Size: 156x132 playable
Bases: 14 (all regular)
Towers: 2
Start locations: 4
Nat-to-nat rush distance: 119/126
Nat Choke size: ~3 gateways
Main size: 30/33 CCs
Tileset: New Folsom (and Tasonis mud for low gorund valleys)
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
Detail Images
+ Show Spoiler +
Special Thanks
... to Johanaz (whose aesthetic skills far outweights my own), for the great inspirational aesthtic style on TPW Crimsonite.
Published on EU as TPW Yuma
|
That map is actually pretty well done, sir. Can't complain about balance at first place. Need to play it first...
|
It looks awesome. Love the layout and texturing. Like a standard rotational with a twist.
One thing though, why would you ever take the normal third as opposed to the gold? For zerg super fast third I get it, but as terran or toss?
Not really a big problem though.
TvZ with SE spawn, it looks a lot easier to push third than SW spawn. Because of the watch tower.
|
It has a really cool layout. I toyed with the idea of 2 1v1 maps smooshed together before the first ones were posted here(insert hipster kitty here), good to see the idea taking off. Just imagine if it were in an MLG map pool and it was the final game. The tension would be slightly more crushing than usual. I'd personally also like if all the spawns were like the NW and SE spawns, in a rotational setup, maybe as an alternate version of the map. But, I digress.
The only problem I see on maps like this is on the spawns with the low ground natural, where when you take the high ground natural, the main behind it is almost a guaranteed free expo, as long as you defend the natural.
However, this also happens on Shakuras Plateau, so again, my comments don't really detract from your map's design. I personally like it.
|
amazing layout. the bases are all in perfect positions. nice job!
|
On October 12 2011 06:04 lovedoctor wrote:
That map is actually pretty well done, sir. Can't complain about balance at first place. Need to play it first...
I'd sign that. Goin' to play this map as soon as I wake up tomorrow 
|
The lava hole where the LosB terminates should just be flat ground for a very large open space.
That is the only thing I have to criticize about this. =)
Also I want to jump on that hipster wagon about 2 1v1 maps cross spawns. 
|
@lovedoctor - please let me know what you think of it after playtesting. On EU we have people in the TPW thread now and then that also wants to play good custom maps and playtest those which are WIPs.
@Dudemeister - a coupple of good points. I do believe the low ground third (in NW and SE spawn pos) is safer than the gold beacuse its slightly closer, has one entrance instead of two and its more likely you continiue to expand in that direction. A gold base is and shoudl be, in my mbook, more risky and harder to take. Do you think of this choise differently?
@MisfortuneS - why do you like the NW and SE more than the others? My main concern for a 2in1 concept like this is that one spwn setup would be less balanced than the other, or broken in some way compared to the other.
@FlaShFTW - thanks
@Gesperrt - Cool. How was your games?
@EatThePath - For once you dont have any other complaints?  I thought you had done 2in1 already. I have a feeling about you that you have a hundred map concepts that you just havn't shown anyone yet beacuse you think the world isn't ready
Please elaborate on why the space in front of gold should be more open? I'm afraid I would make the area too open and too Z favoured or just boring. Finding balance for openess is hard and I tend to do maps too open I believe.
|
Looks cool.
NE vs SW looks like a siege contain with help of the Watchtowers could be a bit strong.
But you would be on three bases against that, so I guess that's all right
|
Played it a few minuts ago. I spawned at the SW position and I had the feeling there is too much space in my base at the beginning :D
But its a really cool map, I like it
|
My only complaint here is that the different spawn positions aren't different enough. It almost seems redundant in the current setup, as though you didn't take full advantage of what you can do with this kind of concept. Aesthetics and the layout itself are solid but I just don't feel like either this concept was executed to it's fullest extent or if the concept was flawed right from the get-go.
As far as suggestions go, I personally would like to see some greater differences between the two spawns beyond rush distance and how safe the natural expansion is. For example, The Starparty V is a map that has some pretty significant differences between the two spawns. The paths you take to attack your opponent are quite different and I feel that ideas like that are what really make the idea of 4-2 (or 2-in-1, whatever you want to call it) maps shine.
|
On October 13 2011 00:06 Meltage wrote:
@MisfortuneS - why do you like the NW and SE more than the others? My main concern for a 2in1 concept like this is that one spwn setup would be less balanced than the other, or broken in some way compared to the other.
I first saw the upper left spawn, and expected a rotational map. Nothing against the map, as I do know what you're going for. Just personal preference, those seem more interesting to me.
|
On October 13 2011 00:06 Meltage wrote:
@Dudemeister - a coupple of good points. I do believe the low ground third (in NW and SE spawn pos) is safer than the gold beacuse its slightly closer, has one entrance instead of two and its more likely you continiue to expand in that direction. A gold base is and shoudl be, in my mbook, more risky and harder to take. Do you think of this choise differently?
It's mainly for TvZ. The zerg would most likely expand to the blue third. I would expand to the gold which is closer to his third than the other. Wall off one of the ramps to my natural with depots and slowly siege push to his third. This is just theorycraft but I doubt there is much he can do.
|
@prodiG - Looking at The Starparty V, I can see how the rocks in the middle makes the atk path for both spawns different up to the point when the rocks are destroyed. But that's all. The expansion pattern is the same on both spawns. The towers are on the same spots, main shape and height levels are identical. That rock concpet, however, IS a nice feature.
The way I read Yuma, 2 base play will be very similar in both spawns. The wall-off possibilities of the nats are the same, for instance. The differences between main and nat position / shapes may play a role once air harrass/drops are part of the game. When you take your third, in both positions you may consider the gold, but is less likely taken in the NE and SW spawns. The regular thirds are on different heights and positions. The XWT placement is different and rush distance is longer or shorter. I think those differences will make different games. Do you disagree?
There is also the point to consider that players might not want to play on the map beacuse one spawn might favour their style (or god forbid, their race) while the other does the oposite. So maybe there's a flaw in the basic concept of 2in1s. But I think as long as 2 base play isn't too different when comparing the spawns, your build will be safe.
|
On October 13 2011 05:18 Meltage wrote:
@prodiG - Looking at The Starparty V, I can see how the rocks in the middle makes the spawns different up to the point when the rocks are destroyed. But that's all. The expansion pattern is the same on both spawns. The towers are on the same spots, main shape and height levels are identical. That rock concpet, however, IS a nice feature.
The way I read Yuma, 2 base play will be very similar in both spawns. The wall-off possibilities of the nats are the same, for instance. The differences between main and nat position / shapes may play a role once air harrass/drops are part of the game. When you take your third, in both positions you may consider the gold, but is less likely taken in the NE and SW spawns. The regular thirds are on different heights and positions. The XWT placement is different and rush distance is longer or shorter. I think those differences will make different games. Do you disagree?
There is also the point to consider that players might not want to play on the map beacuse one spawn might favour their style (or god forbid, their race) while the other does the oposite. So maybe there's a flaw in the basic concept of 2in1s that makes it flawed. But I think as long as 2 base play isn't too different when comparing the spawns, your build will be safe.
The huge difference on the Starparty is the attack paths you take in the early game. One of the positions has a very direct attack path and the other will see both players going around opposite sides of the map until both of the rocks are down. Each position has different emphasis on map features such as the Xel'Naga towers and rocks.
You have this here as well, although to a lesser extent. The expansion path will often be relatively identical on maps like these with slight differences which will obviously create slightly different games, however my issue is the magnitude to which this difference will be. I can't say with any full certainty that the map will play out the same way on either position, but based off of the overview I'd be surprised to see extremely significant differences between the two spawns. Like I said before, the differences between the spawns are what make 2-in-1 maps really shine as a design concept over normal 2-spawn rotational symmetry map. There are obviously risks with 2-in-1 designs like you said, however you can work around them without making the map almost identical on either side.
I don't necessarily disagree with you and I like the design itself but I can't help but feel like more could be done with it without making it some 4th-dimensional over-the-top map that you need an IQ of 300 and a hand with ten fingers to understand.
|
@prodiG - totally agree that the differences between the different spawns are something to make use of in concepts like this. And yeah, you can work around the differences, just as you can make an asymetric map .. non-identical features that balance each other out. But it's hard.
BTW ...
Forge FE
NW/SE spawns:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JRcGi.jpg)
NE/SW spawns:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FkvhY.jpg)
|
I've now finsihed the aesthetics of the map.
The OP is updated with the new overview image.
Here is a photo album of detail beuty shots:
http://imgur.com/a/rvQpB#8
Note: Analyser images added. The mains are smaller now, 30 and 33 CCs
|
looks amazing... Any master wanna test this map on EU?
Phase - 170
|
Just add me - Melt.801
I'll match you with a master or two.
|
@Phase - I still have you added, but can't write to you beacuse you block all messages nto sent to you from someone you've already added.
I got some feedback from Plexa regarding the map's entry into the TLMC contest:
A lot of the bases were about to be zoned out, as on TPW Memorial. The killing blow really was the forced cross positions - very Blizzard unfriendly. Would have done better in a different contest 
Do you agree on the bases being zoned out-part? I supose Plexa means that when you take the other main and nat those bases are more safe and close to one another (which is true of most 4p maps)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yzoUu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MumJ7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m8BNQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N1Dub.jpg)
