|
154x1226m Braxis DeltaPublished: [NA], ( [EU] soon) by Barrin--- INTRODUCTION
This map serves several purposes.
- It is replacing Entombed Valley, a bad map, in the official 6m pool.
- It is heavily macro oriented in the early game, unlike other maps in the pool.
- This should make it a great training map to get used to playing on 6m maps.
- It is (hopefully, and seems so far to be) Protoss favored to balance out other non-protoss maps in the pool.
- It (hopefully) shows that maps can go a long way (perhaps even farther than they should) to help Protoss, who seems to suffer the most from the switch to 6m... at least from the PoV of these old maps that we're so used to + Show Spoiler +
Do not think that we're going to be making proper 6m maps our first tries. After the atrocities that are Blistering Sands, Delta Quadrant, Desert Oasis, Incineration Zone, Jungle Basin, Kulas Ravine, Lost Temple, Scrap Station, Steppes of War, Slag Pits, etc, I think it's reasonable to give us a little bit before we start getting it right This map was originally designed without the backdoor base. But that wasn't very good for Protoss, so I sorta shoved it in there and did what adjustments I could to force the work I did on the layout so far to work right. If I was to start over (which I won't, more projects to work on) I would probably make it more of a medium map, squishing it -> | | <- removing much of the space in the center. But that would take away from the "protoss-favored" and "training map" qualities, so I think it's fine the way it is.
--- AESTHETICS DATA
Texures, Cliffs, Lighting, etc: Braxis Alpha Doodads: 362 Foliage: 55 Destructible Units (other than rocks): Quite a few, scattered. Critters: None.
--- GAMEPLAY
Top-Down Overview: + Show Spoiler + Analyzer Summary: + Show Spoiler + Analyzer Distances: + Show Spoiler + Base Count Overview: + Show Spoiler + XWT's: 2 Rocks: 4 LoSB's: 0 Changed Data: All mineral fields have 2000m, all gas geyser have 5000g.
--- - Barrin
|
I don't usually post in the map section, but just had to say this map looks amazing. Great aesthetic work!
|
What do you mean by destructible units?
|
Looks nice. I dislike that taking lategame expansions doesn't require much map control. Here's a drawing to show what I mean.
I think this map could benefit a lot from removing some expansions and changing their vulnerabilities. The problem I have is that taking some bases essentially gives you a "free" base that is almost invulnerable.
Compared to Cloud Kingdom:
Note: The fourth does make the third somewhat free. Other than that though, the expansions are spread out enough so that it is easy to catch the opponent out of position. Imo not the case on Braxis Delta.
I would suggest making some changes like this so it is less turtle and there is more harass/multi-prong aggression potential.
Small adjustments: -Spread out corner bases -move the 2gas base closer to the natural, remove min only or make it 4 minerals -move the lowground corner base closer -make the highground corner base more vulnerable
|
This is suffering the same deal that was a problem on Cross Point. A protoss FFE, zerg takes gold as nat or 3rd = win.
|
On April 02 2012 07:21 IronManSC wrote: This is suffering the same deal that was a problem on Cross Point. A protoss FFE, zerg takes gold as nat or 3rd = win.
This might not be the case because protoss can take a safe inbase expo and the third is a lot easier than Cross Point. I don't think it warrants any changes yet. If you find that zerg taking the gold is indeed overpowered like Cross Point, I suggest simply adding rocks to the gold to prevent taking it too early against a forge FE.
|
I would agree on removing the base right beneath the backdoor.
|
On April 02 2012 06:05 Superouman wrote: What do you mean by destructible units? There's a bunch of destructible units with graphics like sign posts and spot lights stuff at the top of unit list.
On April 02 2012 06:12 monitor wrote:Looks nice. I dislike that taking lategame expansions doesn't require much map control. Here's a drawing to show what I mean. I think this map could benefit a lot from removing some expansions and changing their vulnerabilities. The problem I have is that taking some bases essentially gives you a "free" base that is almost invulnerable. Compared to Cloud Kingdom: Note: The fourth does make the third somewhat free. Other than that though, the expansions are spread out enough so that it is easy to catch the opponent out of position. Imo not the case on Braxis Delta. I would suggest making some changes like this so it is less turtle and there is more harass/multi-prong aggression potential. Small adjustments: -Spread out corner bases -move the 2gas base closer to the natural, remove min only or make it 4 minerals -move the lowground corner base closer -make the highground corner base more vulnerable Not all maps need to fit that ideal... sometimes it's okay to go outside of it when doing certain concepts.. like heavy macro (this map is supposed to be about as macro-heavy as FRB maps should get).
You note 3 main attack points and the multiple bases they defend.
Note that it's 3 main points, not 2 or 1. And they're spread across a very wide area; you cannot possibly defend all three of them with a single army.
Note that in 2 of the 3 cases, the base that is the most forward and hardest to defend (by far) is also the most desirable in terms of resources. The last case is very far from the first 2 cases and even though it's easy to take, after the rocks get broken it can be very difficult to hold it (promoting aggression).
And for the rest of the qualms, keep in mind that each base in 6m is lighter than each base in 8m. (25% lighter, which is actually a lot more when you consider exponential growth and opportunity cost). You never seem to account for this in your analysis of 6m maps.
Making it 5m would probably be ideal, but I don't really want to change mineral counts on bases.
On April 02 2012 07:21 IronManSC wrote: This is suffering the same deal that was a problem on Cross Point. A protoss FFE, zerg takes gold as nat or 3rd = win. What monitor said. The ease of taking a 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc, but particularly third and to a less extent fourth) is worlds apart, in such a way that shouldn't hurt Protoss nearly as much.
In terms of saturation and ease of initial expansion, this map is probably a little too much, but I think Cross Point is a little too little (same with Devolution sorta, but it's fixed in an artificial way that's not very good for gameplay). Which is more than fine btw, we probably wouldn't know as much without it so don't think me ungrateful.
On April 02 2012 08:12 Aunvilgod wrote: I would agree on removing the base right beneath the backdoor. Map feels so bland without it Expanding becomes too hard IMO. Granted, it may be too easy with it. Map was initially designed without the back door lol It's at just the wrong amount of ease of expanding to remove it.
|
In 6m, you have to be able to take many bases, so the large amount of progressively outward bases is the ideal scenario, right? However I am definitely in favor of making the gold base blue.
By the way, do you want me to upload the replays of the test games we did on here last night?
|
By the way, do you want me to upload the replays of the test games we did on here last night? Yes :D
And they'll probably go blue if they prove to be a problem ZvP.
|
|
On April 02 2012 08:41 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 07:21 IronManSC wrote: This is suffering the same deal that was a problem on Cross Point. A protoss FFE, zerg takes gold as nat or 3rd = win. What monitor said. The ease of taking a 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc, but particularly third and to a less extent fourth) is worlds apart, in such a way that shouldn't hurt Protoss nearly as much.
Are you kidding me? It is super easy to take because it's way more hidden and is an easy 3rd.
Because it's that close, you should add the rocks anyways. On Cross Point, the gold was in the center of the map and zergs still took it as their nat/3rd which became a problem, but somehow it's not an issue on a tucked away gold on your own map because it's "worlds apart?" ...it's tucked away around the corner of your natural barrin.
|
My suggestions for this map, and i'll TLDR the reasons why, based on loading the map up in scII. Then messing with it for about an hour or two with Zerg and Terran. I think these small tweaks can keep it as having a more 'macro' feel without playing more or less like your standard 8m 2g map.
1) 'Natural' base removed: This done because otherwise defending the initial 3 bases is fairly 'easy' which puts you on an income level greater then 2 bases in 8m 2g, which essentially defeats the whole purpose of 6m1hyg.
Additionally this base is extremely vulnerable to fast 1 base medivac / tank pushes (see lost temple) because the ground distance from the ground to the cliff for the defender is just to large. Which imbalances the map in favor of Terran. Illustration in spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +
2) Gold bases at minimum moved/if not removed: Z v P as a zerg player I'd take the gold as my third versus any non 1 basing protoss. Essentially giving me a huge advantage. I tested this, and with my first 2 queens initial tumor, I need only move it once and connect the main, the remaining 'natural', and the gold base. Illustration in spoiler as well.
+ Show Spoiler +
Tested how long it would take to max out, with no upgrades on three base it took 10.5 minutes to max out on Z/R with only zergling speed upgraded on gas. Took me 13 minutes to max and to get a slew of lair upgrades (burrow, roach speed, overlord speed) and 2 attack for missile and meele (started not finished). I also could have started my hive at 13 minutes and been on 4 bases (without the removal of the in base natural).
|
This is fine as a temporary "hopefully good-for-Protoss" map, but I don't see in-base natural working well on this style of 2player generally or in this map specifically. It's so blunt-instrument and the map doesn't seem like it's built to accomodate auto-macro games especially. The features meant to compensate (as I read them) create these weird delayed mandatory incentives. (For example the gold base.) I would much prefer a port of Calm Before the Storm with an extra set of 4ths or something.
Also, there's so much potential for creative and interesting arrangements of semi-easy/free 3rd bases that just isn't possible in the 8m paradigm (for obvious reasons we've all grown familiar with). Drastic example: back door rocks that hook up in the front with the natural entrance with a 3rd base. Or a semi-island arrangement. All sorts of things... time delayed block using hostile spine crawlers. ;D
The point is I see a huge amount of possibilities that are just not there in 8m that we can sift through -again- or for the first time in 6m because providing various less vulnerable / easier 3rd bases isn't affecting the lategame directly.
I hope you don't take this too harshly but I really think you can do better. (We as mappers can do better -- that's a challenge folks.)
|
(double post :D) I appreciate feedback btw <3
|
BTW I can't promise that all of those are actually me playing :D If I play really bad it's prbly not me. Judging from my races I think that is me though.
On April 02 2012 15:02 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 08:41 Barrin wrote:On April 02 2012 07:21 IronManSC wrote: This is suffering the same deal that was a problem on Cross Point. A protoss FFE, zerg takes gold as nat or 3rd = win. What monitor said. The ease of taking a 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc, but particularly third and to a less extent fourth) is worlds apart, in such a way that shouldn't hurt Protoss nearly as much. Are you kidding me? It is super easy to take because it's way more hidden and is an easy 3rd. Because it's that close, you should add the rocks anyways. On Cross Point, the gold was in the center of the map and zergs still took it as their nat/3rd which became a problem, but somehow it's not an issue on a tucked away gold on your own map because it's "worlds apart?" ...it's tucked away around the corner of your natural barrin. There's a lot more to the story than just the gold, is what we were saying.On April 02 2012 18:03 Nerski wrote:My suggestions for this map, and i'll TLDR the reasons why, based on loading the map up in scII. Then messing with it for about an hour or two with Zerg and Terran. I think these small tweaks can keep it as having a more 'macro' feel without playing more or less like your standard 8m 2g map. 1) 'Natural' base removed: This done because otherwise defending the initial 3 bases is fairly 'easy' which puts you on an income level greater then 2 bases in 8m 2g, which essentially defeats the whole purpose of 6m1hyg. Additionally this base is extremely vulnerable to fast 1 base medivac / tank pushes (see lost temple) because the ground distance from the ground to the cliff for the defender is just to large. Which imbalances the map in favor of Terran. Illustration in spoiler. + Show Spoiler +2) Gold bases at minimum moved/if not removed: Z v P as a zerg player I'd take the gold as my third versus any non 1 basing protoss. Essentially giving me a huge advantage. I tested this, and with my first 2 queens initial tumor, I need only move it once and connect the main, the remaining 'natural', and the gold base. Illustration in spoiler as well. + Show Spoiler +Tested how long it would take to max out, with no upgrades on three base it took 10.5 minutes to max out on Z/R with only zergling speed upgraded on gas. Took me 13 minutes to max and to get a slew of lair upgrades (burrow, roach speed, overlord speed) and 2 attack for missile and meele (started not finished). I also could have started my hive at 13 minutes and been on 4 bases (without the removal of the in base natural). Sorry but it doesn't really play like a normal 8m2g map, not even more or less. Yes, from the perspective of the current 6m maps it is going further in that direction (probably farther than it should, but it should indeed be going in that direction), but the mere fact of 6m and it's implications still makes it worlds apart. Not to mention raw vulnerabilities of the bases.
(1) The map was originally designed without that base. Trust me I liked the concept better without it too. But the third was too hard for protoss to take, and switching things around changed it around too much.
The area you are referring to is VERY out of the way, and very far. Moving an army there is generally a real commitment. Cutting off reinforcements to that army is easy. Trapping it with a 2-sided attack is also easy. If that base gets shut down, there are plenty of other options (as you seem to be aware of with your suggestion of removing it).
(2) Gold has not shown to be a problem in ZvP, see discussion with IronMan
Do note the rather large openness of front natural and the gold, making them difficult to defend with spine crawlers, yet still having nice areas where protoss can hole themselves up in with gateway units to reduce surface area? Yes, these bases are enticing. They're also extra vulnerable for initial expansions and therefore risky (keep in mind you don't have to take that path). The fairly high level of raw vulnerability encourages plenty of attacks unlike an "equivalent" 8m2g map.
Maybe I'll end up moving the gold though, I'll keep testing that in particular. WTB [replays] of it.
On April 02 2012 18:27 EatThePath wrote: This is fine as a temporary "hopefully good-for-Protoss" map, but I don't see in-base natural working well on this style of 2player generally or in this map specifically. It's so blunt-instrument and the map doesn't seem like it's built to accomodate auto-macro games especially. The features meant to compensate (as I read them) create these weird delayed mandatory incentives. (For example the gold base.) I would much prefer a port of Calm Before the Storm with an extra set of 4ths or something. Can you elaborate on bolded part?
Also, there's so much potential for creative and interesting arrangements of semi-easy/free 3rd bases that just isn't possible in the 8m paradigm (for obvious reasons we've all grown familiar with). Drastic example: back door rocks that hook up in the front with the natural entrance with a 3rd base. Or a semi-island arrangement. All sorts of things... time delayed block using hostile spine crawlers. ;D
The point is I see a huge amount of possibilities that are just not there in 8m that we can sift through -again- or for the first time in 6m because providing various less vulnerable / easier 3rd bases isn't affecting the lategame directly.
I hope you don't take this too harshly but I really think you can do better. (We as mappers can do better -- that's a challenge folks.) I agree with all of this. This map is by no means supposed to represent what we can do with 6m maps.
|
Those watchtowers are completely unnecessary and just encourage lazy play. They dont reaveal any airspace, so just let the play actually use units to secure the middle instead of just taking their ball and camping the tower.
It though the whole point of 6m was to spread things out and encourage positional play. That idea should be reflected in tower placement as well. I though we were moving past the point of just sticking towers in all the high traffic locations because they exist.
|
It's not very smart to put your whole army at a watch tower IMO. You'll want to keep it closer to home (between gold/dual gas/mineral only/front "natural).
That said, it is definitely working as intended. I understand this particular map isn't very interesting as far as army positioning etc goes (there is plenty of potential for harass as game goes on imo, though). It isn't really supposed to be. This map is supposed to be heavily macro-oriented (indeed a little turtley at first, hopefully not too much, with plenty of potential for harass in later stages while still maintaining macro-orientation), it is supposed to represent an acceptable extreme along this spectrum (though perhaps it went too far). This makes for a great map to practice 6m on.
While harass potential is (imo) plenty, there is still a lot of layers to break through. Multiple layers, each layer having multiple points. The watch towers are the first of these layers (keep in mind that you do need BOTH of them to actually see everything).
(btw monitor this "layer" thing is the last part of the map concept I didn't describe to you; perhaps it is a little too obnoxiously (my word not his) macro-oriented, but it seemed worth trying to me).
I don't think this "layer" thing was nearly as feasible in 8m btw.
---
edit: Working on outline with pictures of this map's concept.
|
i can see the expansion flow you were trying to go for, and i think i see some certain inspirations in this map from bw. but at first glance i going to have to agree the base placement seems a bit congested. i'd have to play it to get a better idea of how the gameplay spans out over time.
|
The map seems nice on the way it favours macro, but still opens oppurtunities for playing aggressive, for example the fourth is placed so the player needs to rearrange his defenses to take it. I like that the map does not encourage a particular style like all the stupid ladder maps we have right now.
|
|
|
|