|
GRANGER ZONE
v1.2 published on NA server as Granger Zone
v1.2 6m1hyg [2000min 5000gas] (low resource) version published on NA server as Granger Zone B + Show Spoiler +note that if the low resource version of this map sucks it is entirely a consequence on my lack of mapping skill and should not be a reflection on the validity of Barrin's theory
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/822QT.jpg)
Agrian scientists used this abandoned UED listening post as a climate observatory.
+ Show Spoiler [Map Analyzer summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [old verions] +1.1 - 1.1.1 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NDFYl.jpg) 1.0 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FYnSk.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [beauty shots] +
+ Show Spoiler [low resource version] +
STATS
dimensions = 112x136
main2main rush distance(analyzer) = 149
nat2nat rush distance(analyzer) = 128
11 8m 2g bases
no watchtowers
3 rocks
tileset = agria (+aiur creep & char cracked dirt)
doodad count = ~800
FEATURES
Base structure is based on the BW map Fighting Spirit with highground third and central base (not anymore but anyway the inispiration was fighting spirit).
Mostly (I think) standard stuff otherwise
also a low resource version (as per Barrin's post) is also published, I didn't make any other adjustments to the map so I'm not sure how it will work out.
Please post you feedback, comments and suggestions to help me improve!
|
Aesthetically, I am in love with this map (based upon what is in the header image). Functionally, I like the base layout and your use of sight blockers in the center, its also great to see 2 entrances to the third and that little 'arbitrary' landmass that allows for all manner of sneak attacks x3. The mains do seem slightly to big, but that may just be me, all things considered, I think you have done a great job ^_^.
|
Lana.....Lana..................LANA......WHAT?!......Granger Zone!
|
On March 17 2012 14:33 TWThoth wrote:
Aesthetically, I am in love with this map (based upon what is in the header image). Functionally, I like the base layout and your use of sight blockers in the center, its also great to see 2 entrances to the third and that little 'arbitrary' landmass that allows for all manner of sneak attacks x3. The mains do seem slightly to big, but that may just be me, all things considered, I think you have done a great job ^_^.
thanks!
I was actually more worried that the map had too small of a main.
32.0 cc's is fairly standard from what I understand http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=272855
Cloud Kingdom for example has 36.0 cc mains.
though the line of los there could still make it harder to scout
On March 17 2012 14:45 Alacast wrote:
Lana.....Lana..................LANA......WHAT?!......Granger Zone!
I just realized that I forgot to google the map's name to make sure it didn't have any unintended references...
edit: I just searched it but i still have no idea what this reference is 0_o !?!?
|
On March 17 2012 15:00 Namrufus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 14:45 Alacast wrote:
Lana.....Lana..................LANA......WHAT?!......Granger Zone! I just realized that I forgot to google the map's name to make sure it didn't have any unintended references... edit: I just searched it but i still have no idea what this reference is 0_o !?!?
Show called Archer. It's all good, the actual quote is "Danger Zone", and it's not very well known anyway.
EDIT: And the map looks very nice, aesthetically and layout wise, too. I always thought the agaria tileset was underused.
|
I'm just thinking Harry potter.
Hmm, the third seems quite hard to control compared to the fourth - you'd want your army in the open, except for a few to intercept drops... Increasing the thirds "home" ramp width might help, or just shift the problem to the opposite end - that the third is easy and the fourth very hard.
|
I love the aesthetics - making Agria look that cool is quite a feat.
however, layout-wise :
1) 140 rush distance is waaaay too short. Steppes of War, universally considered as awful because of its own, is at 130.
2) Both possible thirds are a lot too far away. This, in conjunction with point 1, makes the map an auto-2base allin every game.
3) The pack of 3 expos together in the corners are way too clustered. Holding one (assuming the game drags on to this point ^^) makes the other ones come too easily.
|
Layout is great but there are a few things that i would recommend to change...
- Make Mainbase smaller and push 3rd closer to it so that its easier to get. Otherwise 2Base allins will get to strong.
- Push 4th in the Edge of the Map (if u follow my first point there d be a lot more space). If you change it like that the Bases wont be so clustered any longer
- Enlarge the Map a little bit in the Middle (but PLEASE dont change the middlie layout i love what u did there).
Rest seems good to me.
|
I see that a lot of people are concerned about the distance of the third from the natural. I was thinking that maybe you could put it on low ground and then move it closer to the main (the low ground will prevent warp ins without sight). This helps make the third easier to expand to, and more importantly, if you compare distances from the nat to the third and to your opponent's final expansion, the one to the third should always be closer to prevent circle syndrome.
I really like the middle and the clever locations of those rocks.
|
Thanks for the feedback!
@Reeevolt: thanks for the info, the map name is actually supposed to be a pun on "Danger Zone"
@Duvon: I think I underestimated how easy it would be to defend the 4th if the player had already secured the third, I'll change this.
@ArticRaven: I see now that the 3rds are probably too far. Though I do not think that the rush distance will be a big of a problem as steppes of war. While the raw main2main rush distances are the same, In steppes, the nat-choke to nat-choke distance was insanely short, while on this map there is more than one screen of terrain before you get to the other guy's base (though if the rush distance becomes a problem I could try to add some distance here and there).
@NewEyes: thanks for the suggestions!
@Antares777: yes that's probably what I will do. and your point about circle syndrome is probably true as well, thanks.
---------------------------------
so this might be how I change the map + Show Spoiler [image] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5Hwdf.jpg) not published yet because I need to fix the textures and doodads ( why isn't there an option to copy terrain without changing textures???)
|
Rush distance is too short. Trust me on this one 
|
On March 18 2012 03:08 ArcticRaven wrote:Rush distance is too short. Trust me on this one
Maybe the center base can be rotated? So that the high ground against the minerals and geyser faces the entrances to the naurals instead of off to the sides of the map?
EDIT: This change I think would also make assaults on the center base easier, especially from air units like Mutalisks, Void Rays, and Brood Lords, because they do not have to relocate to attack the center base from behind the high ground. Siege Tanks (with sight) will also be a bit safer when they attack. And since the entrances are on the sides, flanking becomes easier. Overall, I think it would be a good change and make the map more interesting.
I like the changes BTW, they look good!
EDIT: I think that the high ground place with the three 2x ramps into it is a bit awkward. I do not see how it has very much positional influence, yet I don't think that an expansion belongs there either :/
|
@ArticRaven: OK, I believe you :D, what minimum analyzer rush distance do you suggest? ~160, 150?
@Antares777: I just tried rotating the center, it only increases the rush distance to ~147. Though it may make positioning more interesting as you say, I'll probably make that change. I don't know what I could do to make that highground area more interesting; I don't think it could just be removed... armies do have to go through there to attack the 4th
|
New version 1.1 (normal and low resource) is published to NA server!
+ Show Spoiler [map image] +
changes:
-changed location of third and fourth to make the third more accessible and the bases less "clumpy"
-changed orientation of central walls to increase rush distance
-changed mineral arrangement in main slightly to increase rush distance slightly
please post feedback or suggestions if you have any!
Thanks for reading and helping out!
|
I really like the new update of the map. I think it's coming along nicely. However, something that still strikes me is that I think the mains are slightly too big - it seems like you would need to space your buildings out a whole lot to get vision of anything sneaky going on. Of course, if this is by intent, then by all means leave it.
Looking forward to where this is going!
On March 17 2012 14:45 Alacast wrote:
Lana.....Lana..................LANA......WHAT?!......Granger Zone!
Just wanted to say, epic quote. Archer is so good.
|
On March 18 2012 03:08 ArcticRaven wrote:Rush distance is too short. Trust me on this one
No it's not. 128 is perfectly fine.
|
On March 17 2012 16:02 Reeevolt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 15:00 Namrufus wrote:On March 17 2012 14:45 Alacast wrote:
Lana.....Lana..................LANA......WHAT?!......Granger Zone! I just realized that I forgot to google the map's name to make sure it didn't have any unintended references... edit: I just searched it but i still have no idea what this reference is 0_o !?!? Show called Archer. It's all good, the actual quote is "Danger Zone", and it's not very well known anyway. EDIT: And the map looks very nice, aesthetically and layout wise, too. I always thought the agaria tileset was underused.
Yeah! I knew what this was reference to! Win! Archer is so good.
On topic: map looks nice but seems toss favored with all the ramps and chokes.
|
this map actually looks really nice, and looks fun to play on. will definitely test it out next time I go on
|
@Baltor: for reference, the mains on this map are about 25% smaller by area than the mains on shakuras plateu, though the geometry is a bit different (more area far away from the mineral line and the mian choke), I could easily remove the los blockers or reshape the main if tthis becomes a problem.
@IronManSC: to be fair, the nat2nat analyzer rush distance was 120 on the first version. In any case I should have paid more attention to nat2nat distance instead of main2main
@d00p: some of the choke are pretty small, however there is (imo) a fair amout of open space areas around the center where protoss might be at a disadvantage. do you see any particular choke that might be a problem?
@DropTester: Thanks , please post if something in the map seems bad!
the last version of the map published had doodads blocking the lower third that I missed D: I apologize if anyone tried to play it and found the third unbuildable.
anyway it should be now fixed and the newest version published to NA for both normal and 6m1hyg varieties.
|
On March 21 2012 14:36 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 03:08 ArcticRaven wrote:Rush distance is too short. Trust me on this one No it's not. 128 is perfectly fine.
He said that before the OP was updated, btw :p
Ontopic: I love this map. As prodiG said in the ESV chat, it is basically a 2-player Fighting Spirit. Great work. My suggestion right now is to make the center base just 8m2g normal instead of HY because that is just too powerful, especially for a Terran PF. There really doesn't need to be an expo there at all, but it is sort of cool and adds an option for aggressive players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6EKLw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MasK5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0abio.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2Qy4i.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OqD7h.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Vcn9.jpg)
