|
Deception by prodiG
I present to you my second map after coming back from retirement. After seeing the wicked sick prizes in MotM, Cloud Kingdom getting into GSL Code A and S and hope for all foreigner mapmakers around I had to get another map done over my christmas holidays. Deception is based on a concept that I've been wanting to do for well over a year: A mashup of Destination and Match Point, some of the most ingenious Brood War map designs in the history of everything forever. I took some elements from each and put together what I feel is a very interesting map that I hope you will enjoy. The map is named after the song The Deceit by Fleshgod Apocalypse (on an absolutely fucking brilliant album, I might add).
Map is now published on NA as Deception - prodiG on the account prodiG - Please use this version!!!
Deception, like I mentioned above, is an effective mashup of Destination and Match Point from Brood War. Obviously each element had to be retrofitted for SC2 and this design itself, however I tried to keep as true to the originals as I could.
The main base features a back door blocked by wide destructible rocks as well as a relatively easy to defend natural expansion - both of these features stemming from Destination and Match Point respectively. The backdoor rock is sitting atop a line of LOS blockers to prevent warp-ins from reaching over the rock without vision. The natural expansion has a triple wide ramp (the same size as Antiga Shipyard) which is reasonably easy to wall off on its own, or can be walled with the standard ramp-town hall style if needed.
Next to the backdoor are what I designed to be effectively Destination's main base and natural expansion with the double bridges below. Obviously retrofitted for its position on the map, these expansions can be taken a number of different ways. I had originally intended for this map to be a 4 spawn map with forced cross positions but decided that this choice would net a better map overall.
Next up is the middle of the map. All high ground, like Match Point. One of the key features on that map were the high ground pods (Day9 did a Pair of dailies on both Match Point in BW and it's SC2 counterpart (ported by myself and Dyren no less ^^) in which he explains the inherent map control value of the high ground pods on Match Point. I feel as though I've emulated a similar effect here with the positioning of the third expansion, the ramps and particularly the Xel'Naga Towers which allow you to control a similar amount of space as the high ground pods did on Match Point. Above the middle is the expansions designed to play the role of the classic corner expansions on Match Point. A single chunk of destructible debris in the middle of the map emphasizes control of this Xel'Naga Tower in the early and mid game.
I wanted to revisit the aesthetic design I had come up with on (2v2) Citadel of Gaia and here I used the same tileset in a very similar way. I am very pleased with the way it came out :D
Info
Number of Players: 2
Map Size: 124x132
Tileset: Agria, Bel'Shir, Haven, Korhal (Same as (2v2) Citadel of Gaia
Main to Main (ramp): 47 (ingame seconds)
Nat to Nat: 36 (ingame seconds)
Number of Expansions: 12 Blue (all 8min/2gas)
Number of Xel'Naga Towers: 2
Published as: ESV Deception
Changelog
v1.1
-Added high ground near the 3 and 9 o'clock expansions to tighten them up and make them easier to defend
-Added a bridge blocked by destructible rocks to the lowground expansion at 12 and 6
+ Show Spoiler [why] +I wanted to improve the way the map flowed (flew?) with the lowground expansion as well as make the 3rd more defensible for Protoss, they should have a much easier time controlling the lowground next to the main at the 12/6 and simcitying the 3rd at 3/9
v1.0
First release!
My twitter - go here to see WIP map images and more ;D
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
|
You suck at retiring bro.
|
On January 09 2012 10:44 Diamond wrote:
You suck at retiring bro.
lil' bit.
Working on analyzer pics right now guys~
|
On January 09 2012 10:44 Diamond wrote:
You suck at retiring bro.
Quoting for truth.
|
im loving that a lot of these new maps are so different from what we've seen so far. this map looks really interesting with the rock placements
|
|
|
Kinda feels to me like it would be hard to defend both back and front bases. The path that goes around goes all the up into the middle. It doesn't seem like there's any good place to put your army once the back door rocks are down. Not a super well explored concept, though, so I can't really say for sure.
|
On January 09 2012 10:58 Gfire wrote:
Kinda feels to me like it would be hard to defend both back and front bases. The path that goes around goes all the up into the middle. It doesn't seem like there's any good place to put your army once the back door rocks are down. Not a super well explored concept, though, so I can't really say for sure.
Match Point had a similar "issue." Players dealt with it by maintaining a strong presence on the map and constantly pressuring expansions while moving their army around key points of the map. I don't think this map is any different in that regard
|
I really like how Deception influences players to expand in both directions, which will lead to some really interesting games. I do think that the area outside the natural is very open and could use an obstruction somewhere. Defending both your natural and the other side of the map is going to be very difficult though. You either have to move through the main to defend, or move through the middle, and to be honest, both take a good amount of time. I'd like to suggest a path between the low ground base hugging the main and the ground outside of the natural blocked by rocks. I think that would improve the army movement on the map a lot.
I'd also like to say that you did an amazing job at mixing two entirely different concepts together and create something functional, good job!
|
This is the greatest thing ever. prodiG, you already know how bad I wanted this!!
|
i think 2 base tank pushes where they siege up below the main would be way too strong, though it is a very cool concept
|
I actually wanted to see that thing BroodWar mapmakers did where they put 8 minerals blocking an expansion. Doesn't actually do much, but it's cute and it's nostalgic.
I also couldn't quite tell, but are those destructible rocks at the backdoor or just shrubbery?
|
On January 09 2012 12:40 EcstatiC wrote:
i think 2 base tank pushes where they siege up below the main would be way too strong, though it is a very cool concept
Where would you seige? The main is pretty friggen huge, you could VERY easily keep your buildings away from the edge if you're worried about that
On January 09 2012 13:00 Xarayezona wrote:
I actually wanted to see that thing BroodWar mapmakers did where they put 8 minerals blocking an expansion. Doesn't actually do much, but it's cute and it's nostalgic.
I also couldn't quite tell, but are those destructible rocks at the backdoor or just shrubbery?
Both! There's LOS blockers under the rocks to prevent Protoss from throwing a pylon down and warping onto the other side of the rocks without an observer or something. (If you still die to observer + pylon then you'd have died just as bad to Warp Prisms so that complaint is null and void IMO)
|
I love how this map turned out 
I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.
|
Very neat, as always.
My one complaint is that the backdoor kinda forces a player to take the third up against the main and then that nearby fourth and fifth to really be safe from the backdoor, but naturally a zerg player would like the clockwise third more, so it kinda throws off the zergy mojo a tad. But besides that, the map seems really neat.
Also, really curious as to how the third inset into the main will work out. It seems a little choky and hard to defend because the pathing from the natural to that base seems pretty long.
Actually, there's a lot of things with this map where the pathing is really interesting and I'm not sure how it will play out. No matter what, I think this map will produce some really interesting gameplay.
|
On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.
I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.
Maybe that's just me though,
|
On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps. Maybe that's just me though,
3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~
|
On January 09 2012 14:35 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps. Maybe that's just me though, 3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~
I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
My god, rocking up that cliff must have taken a hell of a lot of work. I'm thoroughly impressed.
|
On January 09 2012 14:43 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 14:35 prodiG wrote:On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps. Maybe that's just me though, 3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~ I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though.
There's also the option of having a wider main ramp partially blocked by destructibles like on Crevasse, which can allow more army movement through in the later game (something which is underused imo.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yKrch.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OEEyB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lYiON.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cpJFW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/obts1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OQyvK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yUfyG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SEAD3.jpg)
