|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Cwv1.jpg)
Published on NA Playable map bounds 170 x 170
The starting seed for this map was to have bases on the middle part of the sides of the map and not the corners. I then ran into the problem of having the distances too short. I solved this by using rocks to require players to weave around the map (like lines at Disneyland) and go through the middle to be able to get to other bases in the early game. This gave me the desired distances and made me excited because I hadn't seen a map exactly like what it was becoming. This also lead me to use rocks extensively.
Therefore, the character of the map is such that it is very closed off to start the game. There is only one path between bases and it goes through the center within view of the watchtower. But as you break down rocks it starts to open up more. At the same time I tried to make it so that even when it is more opened up bases are still defensible. When players start in the closer non-cross positions it is still possible for both players to expand away from their opponent. Your base naturally flows very well into adjacent empty main bases while hopefully not making it too easy to attack when an adjacent base is occupied.
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
Screenshots
+ Show Spoiler +
On the topic of extra ramps in main
+ Show Spoiler +On April 14 2012 06:04 MarcusRife wrote:Yes. It is my opinion that in this case it helps the defender more than it hurts them. In the early game it shouldn't be hard to defend them given their position. When you are on three or four bases it helps you to move between bases more quickly. Additionally it makes expansion around the map flow better. On April 14 2012 06:11 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 06:04 Aunvilgod wrote:
6 pool all the way.
A main should not have more than 1 entrance. The way the rocks are positioned you can only have four lings attack those at a time. It takes a long time. With proper scouting you should be able react accordingly and be safe. I don't subscribe to that general wisdom. If you don't believe me we can test it.
Another map by me
Devils Bluff - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=326850
|
Three entrances to the main?
|
I'm a little concerned about having 3 openings to your main, even if two of them are blocked off by rocks in the beginning.
I do really like the high ground in front of the natural, that feels like a structure that hasn't been seen/used before.
It's also the case that reapers might be pretty deadly because of the ~50 second travel time from the edge of one main to the edge of the other in close positions.
One other concern that I have is for the high ground on either side of the outer paths that start blocked by rocks. Is it possible to siege the 3rd and 4th bases from that highground? That would be very annoying to deal with as zerg, particularly if one set of rocks was left up...
I do like the general idea of handling close positions in this way, it seems to make the map more interesting 
|
On April 14 2012 05:53 Yonnua wrote:
Three entrances to the main?
Yes. It is my opinion that in this case it helps the defender more than it hurts them. In the early game it shouldn't be hard to defend them given their position. When you are on three or four bases it helps you to move between bases more quickly. Additionally it makes expansion around the map flow better.
|
6 pool all the way.
A main should not have more than 1 entrance.
|
On April 14 2012 05:59 RFDaemoniac wrote:It's also the case that reapers might be pretty deadly because of the ~50 second travel time from the edge of one main to the edge of the other in close positions. One other concern that I have is for the high ground on either side of the outer paths that start blocked by rocks. Is it possible to siege the 3rd and 4th bases from that highground? That would be very annoying to deal with as zerg, particularly if one set of rocks was left up... I do like the general idea of handling close positions in this way, it seems to make the map more interesting
Hopefully the reapers will be viable but not game breaking.
I added doodad on those highgrounds. Only one extractor is in range of a siege tank and possibly one mineral patch. But the bases are not. I don't see a problem with some possibility for harassment.
|
On April 14 2012 06:04 Aunvilgod wrote:
6 pool all the way.
A main should not have more than 1 entrance.
The way the rocks are positioned you can only have four lings attack those at a time. It takes a long time. With proper scouting you should be able react accordingly and be safe. I don't subscribe to that general wisdom. If you don't believe me we can test it.
|
Backdoor rocks to mains are never a good idea. So what would possess you to have two of them? Moreover, you can't FFe at the 'natural', and a 4gate is an insta-win in PvP.
Interesting idea, but start with taking away 2 ramps at the main, and making a viable natural. Then we can see how the map looks.
|
On April 14 2012 06:04 MarcusRife wrote:Yes. It is my opinion that in this case it helps the defender more than it hurts them.
You're wrong, it hurts them much more than it helps them.
On April 14 2012 06:04 MarcusRife wrote:In the early game it shouldn't be hard to defend them given their position.
The distance for the defender is (slightly) less than the distance between them for the attacker, so it isn't as bad as it could be, but it's still not doable. If I have my units attack one of the entrances and another group attack another entrance then you can't defend unless you aren't getting a strong economy, so there's always going to be a requirement to one base for a considerable time on this map.
This is made considerably worse in PvP, where I can 4gate and throw a pylon near each entrance. Whenever you try to go to one pylon to defend I run a zealot up the ramp on the other side of the base and warp in units on the inside of the rocks. You come back to defend I do the same on the other side. Ultimately it stretches the defending player too thin against early pressure.
Then there's the TvZ issue. If the zerg hasn't knocked down all the rocks before terran gets siege tanks, the terran player can put a tank behind the rocks and siege up the main. So the zerg needs longer range units before the tanks are out. If you have them, the terran can always drop tanks on the high-ground outside the natural and siege that base up instead. Once again, there's too much pressure on the defender for so little effort by the aggressor.
On April 14 2012 06:04 MarcusRife wrote:When you are on three or four bases it helps you to move between bases more quickly. Additionally it makes expansion around the map flow better.
The same could be achieved with a better base layout without having the massive problem of making the main so vulnerable to one base aggression. It's good to be thinking creatively, but ultimately back-doors have proven over time to be pretty unworkable and especially if there are 2 backdoors.
|
On April 14 2012 06:52 DYEAlabaster wrote:
Backdoor rocks to mains are never a good idea. So what would possess you to have two of them? Moreover, you can't FFe at the 'natural', and a 4gate is an insta-win in PvP.
Interesting idea, but start with taking away 2 ramps at the main, and making a viable natural. Then we can see how the map looks.
I gave my justifications for the ramps in replys further down. I will add it to the op. I provided a screenshot of how a ffe can be executed. It looks reasonable to me in that screenshot. Can you be more specific about why 4-gate is insta-win in PvP? That way I might be able to address it.
|
On April 14 2012 07:12 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 06:04 MarcusRife wrote:On April 14 2012 05:53 Yonnua wrote:
Three entrances to the main? Yes. It is my opinion that in this case it helps the defender more than it hurts them. You're wrong, it hurts them much more than it helps them. Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 06:04 MarcusRife wrote:In the early game it shouldn't be hard to defend them given their position. The distance for the defender is (slightly) less than the distance between them for the attacker, so it isn't as bad as it could be, but it's still not doable. If I have my units attack one of the entrances and another group attack another entrance then you can't defend unless you aren't getting a strong economy, so there's always going to be a requirement to one base for a considerable time on this map. This is made considerably worse in PvP, where I can 4gate and throw a pylon near each entrance. Whenever you try to go to one pylon to defend I run a zealot up the ramp on the other side of the base and warp in units on the inside of the rocks. You come back to defend I do the same on the other side. Ultimately it stretches the defending player too thin against early pressure. Then there's the TvZ issue. If the zerg hasn't knocked down all the rocks before terran gets siege tanks, the terran player can put a tank behind the rocks and siege up the main. So the zerg needs longer range units before the tanks are out. If you have them, the terran can always drop tanks on the high-ground outside the natural and siege that base up instead. Once again, there's too much pressure on the defender for so little effort by the aggressor. Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 06:04 MarcusRife wrote:When you are on three or four bases it helps you to move between bases more quickly. Additionally it makes expansion around the map flow better.
The same could be achieved with a better base layout without having the massive problem of making the main so vulnerable to one base aggression. It's good to be thinking creatively, but ultimately back-doors have proven over time to be pretty unworkable and especially if there are 2 backdoors.
Ah, ok now I see the PvP problem. But I disagree on the other match-ups. I fixed it so that you cannot get vision up the other ramps. You can see it in one of the screenshots.
|
On April 14 2012 07:16 MarcusRife wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 06:52 DYEAlabaster wrote:
Backdoor rocks to mains are never a good idea. So what would possess you to have two of them? Moreover, you can't FFe at the 'natural', and a 4gate is an insta-win in PvP.
Interesting idea, but start with taking away 2 ramps at the main, and making a viable natural. Then we can see how the map looks. I gave my justifications for the ramps in replys further down. I will add it to the op. I provided a screenshot of how a ffe can be executed. It looks reasonable to me in that screenshot. Can you be more specific about why 4-gate is insta-win in PvP? That way I might be able to address it.
That is by no means a "proper" FFE. You have no real wall, a huge gaping entrance to your natural, and you REQUIRE at least two cannons to have any modicum of safety.
Looking back to Arid Plateau, Xel-Naga Caverns, or Searing Crater, these maps were generally judged fairly poor for FFE because of the fact that there were two major entrances to the natural expansion. ESPECIALLY Searing Crater, which has a similar style (albeit being more friendly) than yours.
Another issue that exists is the power of hellion run-bys and hidden banelings. Xel-Naga, when in tournament rotation, had these facets of play almost guaranteed because of the fact that the natural was so wide open with many entrances.
A 4gate is an insta-win in PvP because unless you 4gate yourself, the Protoss is simply going to break into your base from any given direction. You would need to be all over the place to prevent a Toss from, say, breaking down the backdoor while warping in the front.
The reason that back-door rocks are an inheranetly flawed concept is because it takes away 'assured' bases. In Sc2, you should have AT LEAST one "gimmie" base, and the meta is moving to have 2 "free" bases (main+natural). The game has evolved from a state of 1-base all ins to a more macro-focused playstyle, which, in turn, means that mappers have been pushed down a path of giving 'free' bases to players. Without AT LEAST a 'free' main, you will have only 1 base all-ins on this map, and nothing else.
The only map in history to have a (semi-functional) back-door-to-main is CrossFire LE. And lest we forget, how often did we see long epic macro games on that map, despite it having a balanced backdoor (hint: almost never). Having 3 entrances to the main is a decision that makes zero logistical sense, seeing that 2 entrances is already an idea that DOES NOT WORK in tournament play. You take away any defenders advantage, and give the attacker an advantage (more to defend, more options for attack).
As it stands, this is not a playable map at any competitive level, I'm sorry. other problems exist asides from the horribly broken main-base layout, but first things first- fix this problem and we can examine the remainder of the map
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r9C53.png)
this is my idea to make FFE viable, you should make sure roaches cant hit the lower ramp though from behind the rocks.
this wont make FFE really easy, cause even though there is high ground blocking the wall, there are still 3 rocks left to break so he can enter 
Anyways i like this map, pretty unique map, you got a special style and i hope you continue making maps
|
|
|
On April 14 2012 08:47 moskonia wrote:this is my idea to make FFE viable, you should make sure roaches cant hit the lower ramp though from behind the rocks. this wont make FFE really easy, cause even though there is high ground blocking the wall, there are still 3 rocks left to break so he can enter Anyways i like this map, pretty unique map, you got a special style and i hope you continue making maps
Updated so that a more traditional FFE is possible. All images should reflect this now. And thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aZ3GL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wce0D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QLFrF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bO3lL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uyWXr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CMRsv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lvBQT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1J7hY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/geKLt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OgLqQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mwQ0M.jpg)
