Liquid`

EDT 05:40
CEST 11:40
KST 18:40

Forum Sidebar

Events/Features

BSL Season 21 BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW caster Sayle BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET

Tourneys

[ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN

Strategy

Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies Siegecraft - a new perspective

Blogs

The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…

Peanutsc

Rocket League: Traits, Abili…

TrAiDoS

[M] (2) Redstone Bluffs

Post a Reply

MarcusRife

343 Posts

March 29 2012 08:27 GMT

New Version
[image loading]

No longer published

Old Version
+ Show Spoiler +

I would like to get some feedback on this map. There is still work to be done. I am trying something that is not the usual. The goal for this map was to have more dynamic expansion paths. I didn't want the order in which you take the bases to be cut and dry. I wanted it to be strategy dependent (i.e. aggressive vs. passive) and dependent on the expansion path of your opponent.

I would also like to respond to the post immediately after the OP that the main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke being a problem. My intention for this map was to make so that the main choke, backdoor, natural, and third were not as clearly defined. The goal was to create more factors you need to pay attention to when expanding and defending. If there are commandments of starcraft map design that I am breaking then I would like to know. I can then pull it back a little to make it a worthy map. But to say the main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke, therefore BROKEN, is not seeing the map for what it is trying to be.

If players expand as shown here.
[image loading]

and they push up the lane depicted there. I am trying to look at it as a player pushing from their natural to their opponents natural. In that case then the distance is about the same as pushing from natural to natural on close-air positions on metalopolis. (From the analyzer the distance is 112. Metalopolis is 110 or 116 depending on whether it is top or bottom) But here there are rocks to slow them down in the early game and a defensible high ground. There is some sentiment around that gameplay is stale and FRB is the way to go. That may be true but I am trying introduce some interesting dynamics while still working under the current paradigm? Are there any thoughts on this?

If you see any issues and have ideas about how to address them while maintaining my goal for this map I would like to hear them.

Analyzer stuff
+ Show Spoiler +

Screenshots
+ Show Spoiler +

Sea_Food

Finland1612 Posts

March 29 2012 09:22 GMT

First off

Poll: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.

Maps with this are basicly unplayable. (27)

44%

Okay, but in special circumstances. (14)

23%

A bad feature that makes the map worse by default. (9)

15%

A compleatly fine map feature. (8)

13%

Fine map feature, but only if backdoor is blocked by rocks or other (3)

5%

61 total votes

Your vote: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.

(Vote): A compleatly fine map feature.
(Vote): Fine map feature, but only if backdoor is blocked by rocks or other
(Vote): Okay, but in special circumstances.
(Vote): A bad feature that makes the map worse by default.
(Vote): Maps with this are basicly unplayable.

You should make the path to backdoor much longer from enemy main choke.

Also the area in front of the third base seems way too open to me.

Aunvilgod

2653 Posts

March 29 2012 12:51 GMT

That poll lacks participation. Maps are not per se unplayable. The backdoor just needs to be easy to defend. Place a watchtower overlooking the attack routes to the backdoor which is easy to take for the defender. Put the whole backdoor on a highground connected to the main.

MarcusRife

343 Posts

March 29 2012 13:45 GMT

On March 29 2012 18:22 Sea_Food wrote:

You should make the path to backdoor much longer from enemy main choke.

Also the area in front of the third base seems way too open to me.

Although your first point may be true, I'm not certain that it is necessarily the case. It seems as though you are basing this on a very general principle that I am not sure is true. Sure the backdoor on Blistering Sands didn't work but there are several features about this one that make this backdoor different from that map. If you can give some specific reasons why it doesn't work on this map and how it can be addressed I would like to hear them.

As to your second point it is 12 squares wide. I didn't want to make it possible to FFE wall off that front and take an easy three bases. Perhaps 10 wide would be better. That is an easy fix if it is an issue. EDIT (Changed in new version. It is now a triple wide ramp.)

Aunvilgod

2653 Posts

March 29 2012 19:41 GMT

The third is fine in my opinion. You could move the mineral line to make a Xel-Naga caverns style FFE possible if it is not already.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

March 30 2012 17:12 GMT

I can tell you enlarged the destructible rocks into the backdoor expansion. This doesn't affect anything. If you test it, I'm willing to bet units can still go through them.

MarcusRife

343 Posts

March 30 2012 21:26 GMT

On March 31 2012 02:12 IronManSC wrote:
I can tell you enlarged the destructible rocks into the backdoor expansion. This doesn't affect anything. If you test it, I'm willing to bet units can still go through them.

You are correct about them being enlarged. You are almost right about it not affecting anything. It affects the visuals. It blocked the ramp before it was enlarged, it just looked like it wasn't big enough like there was space to get through. I enlarged it so it looked like it filled the space. As it is now there is no way through besides destroying them

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

March 31 2012 00:48 GMT

Very interesting. How would you defend 4 bases? When your opponent has 4 bases, he can push through your backdoor and attack your 4th at the same time and you wouldn't be able to anything about it if you took the corner base, and if you took the center base, you'd be exposed to a lot of runbys if you didn't protect your 4th.
And the destructible rocks are fine ^_^

MarcusRife

343 Posts

March 31 2012 02:43 GMT

On March 31 2012 09:48 TehTemplar wrote:
Very interesting. How would you defend 4 bases? When your opponent has 4 bases, he can push through your backdoor and attack your 4th at the same time and you wouldn't be able to anything about it if you took the corner base, and if you took the center base, you'd be exposed to a lot of runbys if you didn't protect your 4th.
And the destructible rocks are fine ^_^

I didn't quite follow what you were saying. Let me try to exhibit some 4 base vs. 4 base scenarios and see if that answers your question. Open the spoiler to see the visual exposition.

I am assuming you are the player at 4 o'clock and the opponent is at 10. Hence the U and and O. I think in most scenarios you should be able to position your army near the orange dot and take an appropiate 4th depending on the 4th your oppoenent takes. If your opponent has the blue base as his 4th then take your corresponding blue base. If he takes the purple base then I would suggest taking your green base. Finally if he takes the green base then take your purple base. Knowledge of your opponent's army movements is critical and creating walls to hinder run-bys is also probably necessary

This is how I drew it up in my head. There most likely are necessary tweaks.

+ Show Spoiler +