|
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/9kr11z.png) Hostile Sands v1.1Published on NA Created by erazeR
Playable Overview
+ Show Spoiler +
Full Overview
+ Show Spoiler +
Aesthetics:
Main and Natural:
+ Show Spoiler +
Third base:
+ Show Spoiler +
Middle Area + a ramp leading to it.
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
Original Plan (drawn in paint)
+ Show Spoiler +
Untextured early stage layout
+ Show Spoiler +
DETAILS:
Map Name: Hostile Sands
Spawn positions: 4
Cross-positions only
Full Area:168x168
Playable Area: 140x140
Lighting: Bel'Shir - Modified.
Textures:
Bel'Shir Dirt Light
Bel'Shir Dirt Dark
Bel'Shir Grass Light
Xii Dirt
Xii Dirt Rocky
Xii Sand
Aiur Small Bricks
Aiur Rocks
Cliffs: Xii Organic Cliffs
Bases: 14 Blue bases (zero golds)
XWT: 2
Hi TL, This is my second four player map I have created, and the fourth map in total. After making my last map (Murky Lands). I thought that to be most aesthetically pleasing, a map needs to be bright, and have a particular theme (green,red etc). With this in mind, I decided I would create a beach map, leading into a temple/green lush styled center. Once Again (as you can see from the pictures) I have used the Height option to smooth grounds off into-unplayable water areas.
This map is set up so there is cross position only(as it is a rotationally symmetric map). This map features an easy natural base followed by a contestable third, with a rather unique-styled center; a very large high ground area with 2 bases opposite of one another, with large ramps leading into it to help avoid areas being heavily zoned from siege tanks(Like Jungle Basin). Obviously no gold bases because they suck.
In-Game description below:
Your first expansion is easy to defend. The third base is particularly contestable with mulitple flanks. Use the Xel-Naga-Towers to gain control of the high ground middle area of this map. Spawn positions are cross-map only.
-----------------------------
Thanks and I'm welcome to feedback and suggestions!
|
nice! reminds me of early iccup maps for sc2 but i like the barren look, i mean its clean. looks really zerg friendly with those thirds so penetrable. where do the physical boundaries lie? the water or the cliff?
|
On January 21 2012 01:25 WniO wrote:
nice! reminds me of early iccup maps for sc2 but i like the barren look, i mean its clean. looks really zerg friendly with those thirds so penetrable.
Thanks! This is normally the way I set up all of my current maps (easy nat, contestable third).
On January 21 2012 01:25 WniO wrote:
where do the physical boundaries lie? the water or the cliff?
The boundaries behind the main are at the cliffs. As for everywhere else the boundaries are obviously the water.
|
On January 21 2012 01:38 erazerr wrote:
The boundaries behind the main are at the cliffs. As for everywhere else the boundaries are obviously the water.
I had trouble with this on my other beach maps, Ohana RE and Clearwater. To us creators, boundaries are obvious. To observers and players, they are not. You can tell a few people that you can't go in the water, but you and I both know deep down people are going to continually ask about the boundaries because they simply are not obvious enough. I would reconsider how you're going about your pathing on this map.
|
I'm not sure why this map would be cross-position only and still be a rotationally symmetric 4p map. Cross-position only means that there is no uncertainty about the opponent's spawn position and no differences in gameplay based on spawn position, so it might as well be a 2 player map, where you can be more creative with the layout of the 4th/5th/6th rather than be locked into doing a rotational symmetry of the main base.
Tournaments do cross-spawn only because they want to use blizzard maps, and a lot of those suck for non-cross positions. You, a non-blizzard map-maker, are not restricted to only making 4p rotationally symmetric maps that suck at most spawns. You have the option of (1) making a 4p rotational map that doesn't suck for all spawns (difficult) or (2) ditch the idea of making it a 4-spawn map, and just make it 2 spawns with a better 4th/5th/6th.
|
United States10253 Posts
very clean map. the 3rd seems really hard to defend though so maybe close in the choke leading to it.
|
I'd say this map doesn't have to be cross position only. The clockwise third is harder, yes, but not game berakingly harder. And if you close up the choke on it like some people are suggesting, you could easily make it viable.
Again, great work. Personally I prefer your Murky map, but that's really just opinion. Both are great, playable maps.
As for aesthetics, I think you could put a little bit more variation in the surrounding underwater parts. They are all uniform right now, and I'd like to see either some more doodads or some height variation. And fish, lots of fish.  To me it would just make the map more interesting.
|
tried to play, but my workers glitch out!
they get "locked" into nexus and gas geysers, my 7th worker cannot leave production, and workers cannot access the nexus
tried in top 2 start locations.
|
In my opinion the natural and 3rd base can potentially be zone controlled, making them quite defendable, thats just my opinion
|
On January 21 2012 21:45 fenix404 wrote:
tried to play, but my workers glitch out!
they get "locked" into nexus and gas geysers, my 7th worker cannot leave production, and workers cannot access the nexus
tried in top 2 start locations.
Thanks ALOT for this feedback ! It was a problem with me forgetting to remove one of the pathing cliff fills when I changed the main size. It should be fixed now ! Sorry for that.
|
I really like the layout of the map. Very easy to understand, but can lead to interesting situations. I will definitely play if ever uploaded on EU. :D
|
On January 21 2012 22:31 PiPoGevy wrote:
In my opinion the natural and 3rd base can potentially be zone controlled, making them quite defendable, thats just my opinion
These are quite possibly the most open bases I've seen outside the natural in Xel'Naga Caverns. If you can zone control those, it's not a map issue, you just happen to be a god.
|
On January 21 2012 02:52 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 01:38 erazerr wrote:
The boundaries behind the main are at the cliffs. As for everywhere else the boundaries are obviously the water.
I had trouble with this on my other beach maps, Ohana RE and Clearwater. To us creators, boundaries are obvious. To observers and players, they are not. You can tell a few people that you can't go in the water, but you and I both know deep down people are going to continually ask about the boundaries because they simply are not obvious enough. I would reconsider how you're going about your pathing on this map.
I disagree completely. The boundaries of this map would only be nonobvious to a simpleton. This map was clearly not created for casual players (eg. teamleague players that have no game sense whatsoever). Great looking boundaries and map once again from the up-and-coming (and rather infamous) erazerr. The chances of this being in the GSL are high.
|
On January 26 2012 20:24 Blazington wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 02:52 IronManSC wrote:On January 21 2012 01:38 erazerr wrote:
The boundaries behind the main are at the cliffs. As for everywhere else the boundaries are obviously the water.
I had trouble with this on my other beach maps, Ohana RE and Clearwater. To us creators, boundaries are obvious. To observers and players, they are not. You can tell a few people that you can't go in the water, but you and I both know deep down people are going to continually ask about the boundaries because they simply are not obvious enough. I would reconsider how you're going about your pathing on this map. I disagree completely. The boundaries of this map would only be nonobvious to a simpleton. This map was clearly not created for casual players (eg. teamleague players that have no game sense whatsoever). Great looking boundaries and map once again from the up-and-coming (and rather infamous) erazerr. The chances of this being in the GSL are high.
Nope, I agree with IronManSC. You have maps like Ohana, Bel'Shir and others that have pathable water, while a map like this has the exact same slope and non-pathable water? It lacks consistency and you will ALWAYS have the problem of players asking "is it pathable? I can't immediately tell and therefore I am upset about this map".
Keeping in mind that lower-level players would usually just shrug and go along with it, but every little possible contention point will be harped on by pros because of the nature of doing their jobs on maps they might be unsure about.
That being said, this is a really pretty map that seems fairly well balanced. Keep up the good work, but please fix the boundaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fEA5t.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oJZrn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kSlB0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6XHqb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5RPFm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eMXoU.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OZFBh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xaqks.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7pxdR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vustz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PRynW.jpg)
