|
ESV Blitzkrieg
+ Show Spoiler [Version 1.1] +
Made by: neobowman
Currently Published On: North America, Europe
I'm not the best at deco but I tried it on my own without Monitor's help this time =D. I think it turned out okay. Inspired by Blitz X and Ride of the Valkyries. The most obvious feature of the map I think is the small path between the mains. It can only be traversed by small units and not large units. This does not mean light/armoured. The side effect of the small path is that it's only useful for rushing and any mid to late game attack through it will not be effective
Large units include
- Ultralisks
- Tanks
- Thors
- Archons
Technically, Colossi should count but because of their cliff-walking mechanic, they can traverse the choke point just fine.
Map details
- Number of Players: 2
- Map size: 144x128
- Main to Main distance:
- Small unit path: 40 seconds ramp to ramp
- Large unit path: 44 seconds ramp to ramp
The Xel'Naga watch tower in the center has vision covering the small unit choke point. The cliff above the natural is unpathable.
I actually started streaming while working on this map so I have a video of me working on the deco. The sound quality's pretty terrible so the music for some reason so the music will sound a bit weird. I'll try to fix it next time I stream. It also lags a bit. Some of the lag is just because the editor lags a lot, and some of the lag is probably the stream. Again, I will work on fixing it for future streaming.
http://www.twitch.tv/neobowman
|
Eh, I just dont think tiny paths a la Blue Storm have a place in SC2 maps. I remember trying one in one of my maps ages ago, and the engine mechanics of SC2 kind of break the concept.
In BW the tiny path was good for small ling/marine/zealot attack and basically nothing else. Moving 12 hydras through it would take forever and be easily defended. Pathing was so bad you just couldnt use it for any 12+unit army, no sort of coherent composition would go through. 200 MnM could get killed by 2 bunkers while they wandered around failing to get in, dragoons didn't fit, fatass lurkers and actually neccesary lategame ultras.
In SC2 almost all army compositions can fit a 200-200 ball through the choke in about 8 seconds, including MnMnM, Stalker/zealot/sentry, roach/hydra/infestor.....anything. Obviously you don't want to engage coming out of the tiny choke, but 8 seconds of being out of position and you have a fully functional army on your doorstep.
Plus protoss has a weird interaction with the idea, because they can defend the choke with a single sentry, as well as being able to move their big power unit (colossus) through with no issue.
Basically what happens is you have to have a medium size ball of units camping the choke at all times, which adds nothing to the game and makes engagements more static and of smaller size.
|
I don't think the small unit path really has a role in SC2 either, just like Sob3k said. All his points are really good. But what I think I can say in addition to his points is that shaving off 4 seconds of rush-time doesn't really make that much of a difference. Also, the way the map works, shuffling, say, 3-5 ghosts or a few lings through there wouldn't really give you a meaningful placement advantage. It just seems like this would never be used because the risk of being caught out of position would give no reward.
|
Yeay reflectional 2p ^^
I think the expansion placement and especially the terrain is excellent, looks rly fun to play on because it's not so simple.
One thing I STRONGLY dislike tho are the bottom middle bases. They are like directly in the area where the action happens later and where the armies are, which imo is rly bad, makes for deathballing and also is really really shitty for Zerg. I would definitely remove them.
10 bases is probably fine. Maybe add an island between bases, would be nice for Zerg to have a one base advantage as well. If you are comfortable with islands..^^
Aesthetics look fine from the overview. Again I have to say I rly wish you ESV guys would add analyzer pics consistently, helps other mapmakers (like me) to understand the map a lot better.
Also Blitzkrieg is a bit questionable of a name. I can tell you that many Germans will be offended by this. Personally I don't care tho...
edit: Thinking about it I don't like the tower either. That highground is sooo important. Even with the bases on it removed, you have to hold that highground to defend your other two bases and that watchtower just makes the position stronger (seeing runbys, camping at tower etc).
|
On January 14 2012 07:20 Ragoo wrote:
One thing I STRONGLY dislike tho are the bottom middle bases. They are like directly in the area where the action happens later and where the armies are, which imo is rly bad, makes for deathballing and also is really really shitty for Zerg. I would definitely remove them.
10 bases is probably fine. Maybe add an island between bases, would be nice for Zerg to have a one base advantage as well. If you are comfortable with islands..
That highground is sooo important. Even with the bases on it removed, you have to hold that highground to defend your other two bases and that watchtower just makes the position stronger (seeing runbys, camping at tower etc).
I definitely agree with these points. I think the tower would be placed better if it was down a level. I also think that doing this could open up the middle level a little bit which might be good, it's a bit tough to judge scale without the analyzer images imo.
Other than that, I really, really like the map.
|
If you place doodads properly, you can make it unpathable to medium units as well. If you want.
I like the idea, and no one knows how it'll play out because it hasn't been done.
That big empty space in the middle looks... bleh. I get why its there, but can't you put something there to fill it? even something purely aesthetic.
Even though the center expansions can't be taken by opposing players, they still work well, allowing the player who is slightly ahead to push for the win. I like that.
I also don't like the tower lol. I'd rather have a north-pointing ramp there for even more flow when engaging above the tiny choke.
|
Okay, some explanation.
The small path isn't just so that only small units can pass through. It's so that giant armies can't pass through. You mentioned that no matter the choke size, huge armies will pass through in like 8 seconds. Well with this small choke, you can't do that. It's small enough so that even with SC2 pathing, you'll have a huge disadvantage going through. That way, the third bases behind the small choke is defensible, even though they're so close to each other. You'll see that Blitz X has the same sort of concept.
Yes, sentries will be able to defend the area amazingly. But so will tanks, infestors, etc. It's fine for all races imo.
I disagree with the notion that you'll have to keep a small army place at the choke at all times. The only reason to defend that base is if you have a third base there, and if you do, you're going to have your entire army there anyway, unless you're attacking which introduces a nice counterattack dynamic.
Early game, 4 seconds off the rush distance is huge, and I think it'll be a cool concept late game too, since it connects the bases around it by a really short route.
If Zerg is taking the bottom base then Protoss has to attack there or something. That area is huge and really open, the perfect area for zerg to flank, or just go for a counter. It might not be the best position for Zerg, but it's not unplayable.
I personally don't like using the analyzer because all the information it gives me, I pretty much know to begin with. I guess I can add them if you want them though.
Blitzkrieg is just a German word, right? I don't see anything wrong with using a foreign word if it sounds cool.
The tower is important because I want the high ground to be important. Let me elaborate. In Reflectional 2 player maps, you need some sort of incentive for players to move higher up on the map. Otherwise, all the attacks and battles will take place through the closest path between the main bases. I'll take a few BW examples. In Ride of the Valkyries, they had huge ramps with high ground overlooking the shortest paths. If you didn't take the high ground, you'd be crushed by the 50% miss chance. Thus, you were encouraged to move up the map. Same thing in Dreamliner. You had to move up or else high ground advantage.
In maps like Odd-eye, there was no central route and you had to split on one side or the other. Blitz X used a similar concept to my map where you only have a small unit choke as the shortest path between bases and you had to go down for large army engagements.
If you see what I'm getting at, because there's no high ground advantage in SC2 (except maybe in TvT), you need to have some sort of advantage by being on the highground, otherwise, it won't be used enough.
And, taking the bottom bases spreads you really thin. Though I admit, I might have to include a few more ramps to make it easier to move around and counter.
On January 14 2012 08:21 iGrok wrote:
If you place doodads properly, you can make it unpathable to medium units as well. If you want.
Naa, not what i'm going for.
On January 14 2012 08:21 iGrok wrote:
That big empty space in the middle looks... bleh. I get why its there, but can't you put something there to fill it? even something purely aesthetic.
I'm terrible at thinking up of middles. Like really. I'll try to imagine something and put it together.
On January 14 2012 08:21 iGrok wrote:
I also don't like the tower lol. I'd rather have a north-pointing ramp there for even more flow when engaging above the tiny choke.
Eh, I might need to add some more ramps but I like the tower.
|
Ok after reading this and actually looking at it ingame I think the bases should be half bases. The area is big enough, but imo still not big enough to allow full bases in such a position.
The tower is probably fine as it is. As you said there is like no real highground advantage so adding something is probably good + you can always go around by air.
Btw some the right hole in the middle doesn't have manmade cliffs all around ^^
edit: Also after looking at it ingame, your texturing in the manmade is kinda funky lol. But I like it. What I don't like tho is those little bits of manmade texture on the rocky area. Looks TOTALLY out of place.
|
PLEASE change the name of the map. Blitzkrieg is just an god damn aweful name and quite many people are offended by using a terrible war for such purpose!
|
I really like the map. I'll admit I am not very familiar with Blitz X, but I do know RoV. I haven't seen a lot of close air space reflection symmetry maps in a while, and I think the reason they are less common is because the amount of creative ideas you could come up with for them are much more limited than on rotational maps.
The small narrow path is game changing and adds dynamic to whichever maps we see the idea used. On Blitzkrieg, it's no exception. Even though the thirds are so close, the choke makes it easier to defend them and adds spectator value and skill to the game.
Something I would like to point out about some bases on this map have a lot of air space behind them. That, and the combination of the fact that there are restrictions on ground movement all over the map, make Mutalisks very powerful because of their mobility. I'd address this potential issue on the map in the next version. With that said, the map's aesthetics are simple and the layout is very unique, and I really am looking forward to some pro games on this map!
Amazing work!
|
On January 14 2012 08:43 Ragoo wrote:
edit: Also after looking at it ingame, your texturing in the manmade is kinda funky lol. But I like it. What I don't like tho is those little bits of manmade texture on the rocky area. Looks TOTALLY out of place.
I thought the decals showed up in game. I was wrong. I spent an hour on that too. Just check my stream vid. I'll do something about it.
On January 14 2012 08:52 Tofugrinder wrote:
PLEASE change the name of the map. Blitzkrieg is just an god damn aweful name and quite many people are offended by using a terrible war for such purpose!
I don't see what's so bad about it. According to wikipedia:
Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war"; About this sound listen (help·info)) is an anglicised word[1][2][3][Notes 1] describing all-motorised force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery, combat engineers and air power, concentrating overwhelming force at high speed to break through enemy lines, and, once the lines are broken, proceeding without regard to its flank. Through constant motion, the blitzkrieg attempts to keep its enemy off-balance, making it difficult to respond effectively at any given point before the front has already moved on.
Sure it was used by the Germans, but I don't see how that makes it a bad word. I mean, do people not use the word Atomic Bomb because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
On January 14 2012 09:27 Antares777 wrote:Something I would like to point out about some bases on this map have a lot of air space behind them. That, and the combination of the fact that there are restrictions on ground movement all over the map, make Mutalisks very powerful because of their mobility. I'd address this potential issue on the map in the next version.
THat's something to think about. For my maps, I tend to have very little airspace between the edges of pathable area and the border of the map. So for the main and natural, it should be fine, but the other maps do seem to be pretty vulnurable. I'll look into that.
And thank you everyone for the comments. <3 <3 <3
|
On January 14 2012 08:52 Tofugrinder wrote:
PLEASE change the name of the map. Blitzkrieg is just an god damn aweful name and quite many people are offended by using a terrible war for such purpose!
Change it to Rape.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I really like this map. Obviously, the small path needs some testing and adjustment based off of feedback and whether or not it lives up to your intentions, but I really think this map is something special. Excellent job.
|
On January 14 2012 09:47 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:52 Tofugrinder wrote:
PLEASE change the name of the map. Blitzkrieg is just an god damn aweful name and quite many people are offended by using a terrible war for such purpose! I don't see what's so bad about it. According to wikipedia: Show nested quote +Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war"; About this sound listen (help·info)) is an anglicised word[1][2][3][Notes 1] describing all-motorised force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery, combat engineers and air power, concentrating overwhelming force at high speed to break through enemy lines, and, once the lines are broken, proceeding without regard to its flank. Through constant motion, the blitzkrieg attempts to keep its enemy off-balance, making it difficult to respond effectively at any given point before the front has already moved on. Sure it was used by the Germans, but I don't see how that makes it a bad word. I mean, do people not use the word Atomic Bomb because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
And if you look at the rest of the wikipedia entry you basically just the WW2 Blitzkrieg talk. There's only one Blitzkrieg basically. "Hiroshima Nuke would be similiar name not "Atomic bomb".
|
On January 14 2012 10:39 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 09:47 neobowman wrote:On January 14 2012 08:52 Tofugrinder wrote:
PLEASE change the name of the map. Blitzkrieg is just an god damn aweful name and quite many people are offended by using a terrible war for such purpose! I don't see what's so bad about it. According to wikipedia: Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war"; About this sound listen (help·info)) is an anglicised word[1][2][3][Notes 1] describing all-motorised force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery, combat engineers and air power, concentrating overwhelming force at high speed to break through enemy lines, and, once the lines are broken, proceeding without regard to its flank. Through constant motion, the blitzkrieg attempts to keep its enemy off-balance, making it difficult to respond effectively at any given point before the front has already moved on. Sure it was used by the Germans, but I don't see how that makes it a bad word. I mean, do people not use the word Atomic Bomb because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And if you look at the rest of the wikipedia entry you basically just the WW2 Blitzkrieg talk. There's only one Blitzkrieg basically. "Hiroshima Nuke would be similiar name not "Atomic bomb".
Nukes have also only been used in WWII. Again, I fail to see how bad it is.
|
I think the 4th is too close to the 3rd/nat. You can basically easily hold 4base by controlling one single area. You might be better off turning the two middle expos into one neutral expo at 6, which would give you more room to move the 4th and 5th around. I don't think the 5ths need that cliff. I don't think z/p can use it anywhere near as effectively as terran based on its size/position/islandness, and the map certainly isn't unfriendly to terrans in the first place. If you follow my previous suggestion you'll be able to manipulate the 5th more and can increase harass potential by moving it away from the edge (and modifying its pathing, etc) in a way friendly to all races.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Can you make it so the map is considered melee and not custom 
|
Okay, I'll do that stuff in the next version. I'll try to have it out tomorrow.
|
Love the way the natural ramp is, will make Terran wall offs much more Protossy. As for the third base choice, the bottom choice is kinda dumb, the minerals can be easily harassed on highground.
Would also be intresting to add a ramp to the low ground next to your base, so you can defend your third with Siege tanks or w/e since its pretty open right there.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 14 2012 12:41 neobowman wrote:
Okay, I'll do that stuff in the next version. I'll try to have it out tomorrow.
well at the moment there is only one player slot and hence unplayable 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBE6C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/89AIQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZaJnS.jpg)
