|
6m1hyg HIDDEN SANDS
v1.0 published on NA server as "6m1hyg Hidden Sands"
v1.0 published on EU server as "6m1hyg Hidden Sands" by Chargelot
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cW1Qc.jpg)
The once-pristine tidal pools of Port-Zion are now littered with the refuse of heavy industry.
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [previous versions] +
+ Show Spoiler [beauty shots] +
STATS
dimensions = 136x138
rush distance (analyzer main2main) = 161
rush distance (analyzer nat2nat) = 129
watchtowers = 2
rocks = 0
16 total bases
10 (6m1hyg) bases
4 (6m) bases
2 (6m2hyg) bases
tileset: port zion with xil sand and valhalla sand
FEATURES
Low resource map (6m1hyg w/ 2000mins 5000gas) following Barrin's current standard: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242
If the map is bad it is entirely a consequence of my lack of mapping skill and should not not reflect on the validity of FRB
there are quite a few small chokes near the center of the map which I did to match the smaller army sizes.
the mains are quite small, but there is alot of building space on the plateau on the same level as the natural, as well as a "in-nat" 6m base, mining workers on the min only can be hit by most (all?) ranged units (including roaches) if they have vision
your feedback, comments and suggestions are appreciated!
|
Lowering total resources + keeping the same number of bases as previous resource level maps + making bases more difficult to defend = the downfall of 6m.
You can't demand that a player should have to expand 20% faster with bases that are 50% harder to defend. That's not helping the game, that's inspiring 1 base 4gate vs 1 base 4 gate all over again.
|
Something I would consider changing is adding a ramp to the 12/1 o'clock bases from the high ground natural-ish area. Not only would it give players the option to choose between 2 possible thirds, in terms of 4th it would also keep players fairly spread out and it also would add a secondary attack path into the natural high-ground area that players could use if they couldn't break up into the natural via the already existing ramp.
|
These bases are way too hard to hold for 6m. Might work if you put a min only base on the high ground.
|
Like others are saying the bases are too hard to take.
Also, the closer third is counterclockwise from the natural, but the better endgame plan (for the best protection) is to expand clockwise. Try to make it clearer which bases belong to which player.
Otherwise, the map is very interesting, if not ideal.
|
I kinda messed up on this one...
@Chargelot: OK I see what you mean, I'll make some large changes to the map soon to try to make the bases easier to take.
@lost_artz: a problem I see with with doing that is that it might encourage players to expand equally in each direction which is bad generally because of reasons enumerated here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304777 (circle syndrome, or too many ambiguous bases)
@sam!zdat: adding a mineral only on the nat highground might be a solution, however giving players free minerals in their base might be contradictory to the FRB concept (unless I am misunderstanding your idea); though super easy to harass minerals might be ok...
@rumblebadger: I intended for players to expand counter-clockwise and for that single base was be a late game option for the closer player, I tried to minimize the ability to expand further clockwise, but as it is it may be too easy to just keep expanding in that direction.
Anyway here is a new version, I tried to address most of the issues. The map is now published without the 6m1hyg tag before the name, I was a bit premature :/
+ Show Spoiler [map image] +
changes
-changed location of the nat ramp to be closer to the third base
-added barrier near the third to make the are less open and harder to attack (hopefully)
-increased the size of some of the central chokes slightly
-other small changes
|
At firs I was sort of agreeing with the others that the bases seem too difficult to hold, since the double gas "fourth" is so far away from the third and is running contrary to what I believe is the more correct counter-clockwise expansion pattern. Working clockwise seems to move toward your opponent much faster (which may be ok for T) and also seems to lose some of the "protection" the chokiness of the middle area might offer.
But that is sort of the beauty of that being the double-gas base, because it is in a much more risky position. You are probably going to take the one on your side of the map and let it get sacked a few times just to squeeze out that extra gas.
Also, at first I was thinking there should be a ramp down to this base too, and that may still be a good idea, but I can definately see *not* going with that and keeping that large plateau area for extra production buildings. I've found that from playing on Devolution, I'm building production facilities all over the place with P & T. While some strategic blocking buildings may still be used on this map, it is a neat idea to have a large safe harbor for the abundant production structures.
Edit: To clarify, I was typing this up before I saw Nam's post above... doesn't change my opinion too much though.
|
Correct me if im wrong but isn't this a 7m1hyg map?
edit
Namrufus responce mentions "-other small changes" but i dont view having 7 mineral patches at the main as a small change (if a change at all) . So changing it to 7m1hyg would be more precise.
|
this map is solid except for 2 things.
1. the area behind the main's mineral line, if the terran drops siege tanks behind there with medivacs, its game over.
2. there might be a little too many bases (2 or 4 too many)
but solid map
|
Some words of encouragement: This is a new style. Everyone needs to work on it, and in truth, it will probably be best when we set new standards that none of us have even thought of yet. It's good that you're trying 6m. I think more people need to try. And it's only by trial and error that it will be perfected. So don't mind error.
Some advice:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9kV4u.png)
14 base 6m has the mineral patch count of 10.5 base 8m. I think every map maker using 6m should refer to this chart whenever they want to build a new map. It shows how unrewarding a 3rd base is in 6m (containing only 2 more minerals than 2 base 8m), and why it should be easier to defend the third.
It shows that you need significantly more bases for the same number of minerals (the idea isn't to make the game end at 30:00 because there are no more minerals, it's to make the player more active in the game), and it just all around flat out tells us what we already knew but we weren't really thinking:
6m changes all the rules.
On March 26 2012 14:05 iMrising wrote:
this map is solid except for 2 things.
1. the area behind the main's mineral line, if the terran drops siege tanks behind there with medivacs, its game over.
2. there might be a little too many bases (2 or 4 too many)
but solid map
The idea that people look at 14 bases on a 6m and think "that's too much" is scary. Most 2 player 8m maps have 12 bases, equating to a total number of mineral patches found in 16 bases in 6m. Again, the reduction isn't intended to make the game end because there are no minerals left. Ideally, you would have the same number of minerals on a 6m and 8m map, but with more bases and more expanding on a 6m map.
|
With the above post in mind, I think that sam!zdat 's suggestion is actually a pretty good one. If you add a mineral only base to the high ground you give players a real opportunity to actually macro up. (your main has 7m (??)) You would also of course add an extra ramp up to the high ground, probably blocked by rocks at first to make it so that the base is not "free".
Keep in mind that 4 6m 1hyg bases is ~ the same income as 3 8m2g bases. Therefore, the ease of defending 4 bases in 6m1hyg should be about the same as it is to defend 3 bases on a "normal" map.
Edit: I realized I posted a bunch of **** without providing any real evidence to support my claims. Therefore, I would refer skeptics to Barrin's 6m Devolution, and have them study the base layout (you can get to 4 bases somewhat easily)
As a side note, I think all map makers interested in 6m should consider Chargelot's post...
|
The 4th on Devolution in my experience is not so easy to take, at least for protoss. The mineral only is of limited utility especially in pvz.
|
@HypertonicHydroponic: Thanks for your thoughts! I'm going to try to make it so the expansion pattern is a bit more well defined.
@shibomi:
that is a mistake, the map is supposed to be 6m, thanks for catching that (I should have noticed...)
@iMrising:Ok, drops will probably be a bit too strong there, I'll shift the mineral line location away.
@Chargelot: Thanks for the advice, I wasn't thinking enough about the consequences of 6m, the things in you mention are important to consider. That chart is really eye-opening, even though it should be obvious. thanks!
@TheFish7: All of your points make sense, I should have put more thought into the expansion pattern. thanks for the feedback!
@sam!zdat, TheFish7: I think I will add that mineral only base to the nat plateau, I'll see how it goes.
version 0.3 updated in the OP and published to the NA server
+ Show Spoiler [map image] +
changes
- fixed main mineral line number
- change orientation of main mineral lines
- added min-only expansion to the plateau outside the main, most (all?) (including roaches) ranged units can hit mining workers from the lowground if they have vision.
-brought 2 gas expansion slightly closer to the nat entrance of the closer spawn, also moved the mineral line furhter back towards the edge of the map
-moved corner expansion back slightly
thanks to everyone that posted, your thoughts are appreciated! thank you.
|
On March 27 2012 06:15 TheFish7 wrote:
With the above post in mind, I think that sam!zdat 's suggestion is actually a pretty good one. If you add a mineral only base to the high ground you give players a real opportunity to actually macro up. (your main has 7m (??)) You would also of course add an extra ramp up to the high ground, probably blocked by rocks at first to make it so that the base is not "free".
Keep in mind that 4 6m 1hyg bases is ~ the same income as 3 8m2g bases. Therefore, the ease of defending 4 bases in 6m1hyg should be about the same as it is to defend 3 bases on a "normal" map.
Edit: I realized I posted a bunch of **** without providing any real evidence to support my claims. Therefore, I would refer skeptics to Barrin's 6m Devolution, and have them study the base layout (you can get to 4 bases somewhat easily)
As a side note, I think all map makers interested in 6m should consider Chargelot's post...
I think anything beyond 4 bases on 6m should be more difficult to defend, however. It needs to be made standard so that it can be played on and utilized by bronze leaguers or MKP/DRG. So allowing players to more easily take a 3rd/4th will definitely make maps more usable (at least as usable as current 8m maps are), but how many gold league or even masters league players will get to 5 bases? I don't think it would happen very often. The players who would get to 5+ 6m bases would have the skill required to defend them, or they will swiftly learn to stick to 3-4 bases.
Overall I think there needs to be a more defined tipping point when it comes to the difficulty of taking more bases.
If in 8m the difficulty of holding a newly acquired base looks like this:
main: 0%
Natural: 10%
Third: 20%
Fourth: 30%
Fifth: 50%
I would have 6m look like this:
main: 0%
Natural: 10%
Third: 15%
Fourth: 25%
Fifth: 50%
Overall, it just need to be appealing to players. 5+ bases don't usually exist at one time, they're usually built out of necessity because the first base or two have mined out. In that situation, you are FORCED to take the fifth base, or you will lose. But early game expanding needs to be worth it, or we will see a serious decline in the metagame. Everyone will go back to 1 base all-ins for a long time simply to avoid dealing with the unappealing third/fourth.
keep in mind the above hypothetical base acquisition difficulties are assuming a 1v1 map like this. The rules are different on 1v1v1v1 maps, obviously.
@namrufus:
That's actually really nice. That mineral only expo makes a huge difference, and I like how the dual gas base is nicely tucked in against the plateau. It really makes all the difference. Very cool. The lack of a dedicated ramp at the mineral only base is made up for by its position. It's easy to defend early on, but it will get more difficult as the opponent gets the ability to fire up cliffs. Seriously well made, I think.
|
Anyone want to try this map with me im a master lvl protoss
|
|
|
I think this map came out really good. I was going to say the 3rd mineral line is too close to the low ground, but on second thought its actually a cool feature - it means that you can't just depend on that base to turtle up, and makes for more dynamic gameplay.
|
When will this be published in the eu? can't wait to try it 
|
@Chargelot, TheFish7: thanks, I am wondering if this expansion or the other min only expansion should have a gas, with the two min onlies and the two gas fairly vulnerable, there might not be enought gas on the map in general, I'm not sure.
@grapz: please post if you noticed any problems with the map !
@moskonia: I may or may not be able to get the map onto the eu server
|
On March 29 2012 13:00 Namrufus wrote:@Chargelot, TheFish7: thanks, I am wondering if this expansion or the other min only expansion should have a gas, with the two min onlies and the two gas fairly vulnerable, there might not be enought gas on the map in general, I'm not sure. @grapz: please post if you noticed any problems with the map ! @moskonia: I may or may not be able to get the map onto the eu server
I hosted RetroSpork on eu for you. If you'd like me to put this one up just shoot me a PM, or email with the file attached if you still have my address laying around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HaWzO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fXP6J.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IzbMR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/F0ITg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/24Pdz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ooKa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mmlVr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PV7f2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iSjgL.jpg)
