|
![[image loading]](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/ambientphoto/OM-Banner.png)
Orbiting Meadows - "You'll never get any closer to heaven"
By Caviar
Published Battlenet NA
Specs:
Current Version: Beta
Spawns: 2
Bounds: 168x114 (Playable)
Rush: 54 seconds (ramp2ramp)
10 Expansion (2 Gold)
2 Xel'Naga
2.5 Changes
- Changed the middle expansion minerals to high yield
- Added a bridge from adjacent high grounds through the middle with destructible debri
- Added two Xel'Naga Towers on the low ground below the central bridge
Feedback and comments appreciated.
Map Overviews
+ Show Spoiler +New (2.5) ![[image loading]](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/ambientphoto/overview-1.png)
Pretty
+ Show Spoiler +Start/Natural ![[image loading]](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/ambientphoto/om-spawn.png) 3rd ![[image loading]](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/ambientphoto/om-3rd.png)
Bonus++
+ Show Spoiler + Loosely inspired by.. ![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/6/63/Orbiting_Meadows.jpg)
|
Lol, I'm getting sick of these grass space platform maps. ^^ It looks good, though.
The layout is interesting. Kinda cool. It's an interesting expansion pattern. Kinda feels like circle syndrome, but with such a huge missing chunk from the center, it's so extreme that I think I think players will always take it into account and alter their style for this map. You can get four bases pretty linearly so most issues wouldn't be a problem. Even at the fifth base it's not too big of an arc to defend, still smaller than the attacking arc.
I'm not entirely sure, but I'm interested to see how it would play out. Especially with no watchtowers, there's a lot of skill to scouting on this map. It's easy to defend if you know which lane the opponent is coming down to prepare, but you have to have good map awareness. I like it. The map has a strong identity, and nothing stands out at me as being broken.
|
Sober, simple, efficient. I like this. The proportions look right.
However, there are problems in the expo layout : the two bases in the middle organic "corridors" are redundant. Remove one of them, because they are equivalent in terms of access paths. I think the one under main is the one that should go, because it belongs to the other player but is very easy to harass via a pylon/tanks/broodlords in your main. I like the other one a lot. 
On another side, it is very easy to hold your side of the map, because the distance between one choke to another is way longer for the attacker, so the defender can always be in place to greet him from up a ramp. Also, only 2 paths makes counterattacks and backstabs very hard to pull off, which disadvantages zerg and makes deathball play way more efficient.
|
On May 07 2012 04:28 ArcticRaven wrote:Sober, simple, efficient. I like this. The proportions look right. However, there are problems in the expo layout : the two bases in the middle organic "corridors" are redundant. Remove one of them, because they are equivalent in terms of access paths. I think the one under main is the one that should go, because it belongs to the other player but is very easy to harass via a pylon/tanks/broodlords in your main. I like the other one a lot. On another side, it is very easy to hold your side of the map, because the distance between one choke to another is way longer for the attacker, so the defender can always be in place to greet him from up a ramp. Also, only 2 paths makes counterattacks and backstabs very hard to pull off, which disadvantages zerg and makes deathball play way more efficient.
I don't think they're redundant because it doesn't seem like if you get one of them, you get the other one for free. That would be problematic, but one of them is much harder to defend (it is much closer to the opponent and is right by their main.) This differentiates the bases, even if they are on the same path. I think it's good as is because you still will take one and won't take the other right away, but it can be an extra base you can take if it gets to super late game.
I would think counterattacks and backstabs on this map would be very possible, and deathball play would be a bit weak. Just like Bel'Shir Beach, there is a huge gap in the middle and two main paths around it. That map had a ton of counterattacking, where like half of PvZs ended in base trades. It's very hard to go back and defend once you are a ways down one corridor, so deathball play should actually be pretty weak.
|
On May 07 2012 05:07 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:28 ArcticRaven wrote:Sober, simple, efficient. I like this. The proportions look right. However, there are problems in the expo layout : the two bases in the middle organic "corridors" are redundant. Remove one of them, because they are equivalent in terms of access paths. I think the one under main is the one that should go, because it belongs to the other player but is very easy to harass via a pylon/tanks/broodlords in your main. I like the other one a lot. On another side, it is very easy to hold your side of the map, because the distance between one choke to another is way longer for the attacker, so the defender can always be in place to greet him from up a ramp. Also, only 2 paths makes counterattacks and backstabs very hard to pull off, which disadvantages zerg and makes deathball play way more efficient. I don't think they're redundant because it doesn't seem like if you get one of them, you get the other one for free. That would be problematic, but one of them is much harder to defend (it is much closer to the opponent and is right by their main.) This differentiates the bases, even if they are on the same path. I think it's good as is because you still will take one and won't take the other right away, but it can be an extra base you can take if it gets to super late game. I would think counterattacks and backstabs on this map would be very possible, and deathball play would be a bit weak. Just like Bel'Shir Beach, there is a huge gap in the middle and two main paths around it. That map had a ton of counterattacking, where like half of PvZs ended in base trades. It's very hard to go back and defend once you are a ways down one corridor, so deathball play should actually be pretty weak.
This is different from Belshir Beach. On Belshir you cannot wall two ramps to lock your own part of the map ^^ also anyway the second base is impossible to hold. But i stand on my opinion that they are redundant.Two bases that linear on the same attack path with nothing in between add nothing to army positioning.
|
really dig the aesthetics. the one problem i have with layout is that it seems that it's too easy for T to take their third and fourth in the center, planetary up, and have an easier time defending both bases than an attacker would have assaulting them.
maybe a bridge in the center would help this?
|
322 Posts
I really like the expansion flow and design of the map but I do not like the center at all. Two giant paths are boring and likely to create base trade scenarios because it's easy to walk around the other army.
A suggestion to 'fix' it:
Take the central bases rotate them 90 degrees clockwise and put them up on the high ground, and then add a path crossing the two central paths.
Picture to explain:
+ Show Spoiler +
Good things (imo) that this does:
Increases expansion flow.
Makes taking more than four bases much more viable.
Helps pathing through center.
Creates an optional forward third.
Solidifies whose bases are whose.
Anyway, I like the map, can't wait to see what you do with it.
|
On May 07 2012 06:37 RumbleBadger wrote:I really like the expansion flow and design of the map but I do not like the center at all. Two giant paths are boring and likely to create base trade scenarios because it's easy to walk around the other army. A suggestion to 'fix' it: Take the central bases rotate them 90 degrees clockwise and put them up on the high ground, and then add a path crossing the two central paths. Picture to explain: + Show Spoiler +Good things (imo) that this does: Increases expansion flow. Makes taking more than four bases much more viable. Helps pathing through center. Creates an optional forward third. Solidifies whose bases are whose. Anyway, I like the map, can't wait to see what you do with it.
I had plans to doing what you did but I held back. I might end up doing that in the end.
|
Just posted a modified layout bridging the two sides and shifting the 5th
|
On May 07 2012 04:28 Gfire wrote:
Lol, I'm getting sick of these grass space platform maps. ^^ It looks good, though.
Better than another Bel'Shir map ^.^
|
None of those bases on the middle grass in B can be taken in the lategame, they're far too close to the opponent and each other, with no defensive terrain. It improves the map flow but it's more or less a 4 base map with a very unlikely 5th and 6th. For this reason A is a much better map even though it suffers from the monumental split path.
It's going to be hard to fit something that works in that middle space with how you have the ramps now and how far it is between the two sides (not extremely far).
I know this wasn't your intention at all, but this might offer more options if you turn it into a mirror instead of rotational setup.
Also waiting to see what happens here. 
|
Yet another update, this one much larger. Read the changelog above.
|
i liked this a lot better. Just two points :
1) The 6th is still way too close to the opponent's main.
2) The center bases are way too clsoe too. It's very hard to hold your own if the opponent already controls his.
|
Personally I prefer v1 but v2 is good too.
* If you decide to go with v2, think to enlarge (just a little bit) the middle path for zerg
good map1
|
Actually seems a lot like Daybreak now.
|
New Version available with quite a large layout change, notes above.
|
LoL! I love the Futurama shoutout by the title. Fuck yeah. I will try this map out just for that alone. =)
|
much better now.
I still prefer the v1.0 but this one is a good alternative!
|
Wow this is definitely the best yet, and it's really an improvement! I think the middle bases might be too close still -- they are still in the majority of cases a winners base or at best they can't both be occupied with any stability (this is bad but not horrible). However, as gold bases the payoff is faster and gold bases are lean more towards winners bases anyway, so I think they function within the framework of the map as well as you could hope for, and I think that's fine. Notwithstanding, gold bases need to be 6 patches. Eight patches is 40% more income than a normal base... way too strong. Other than I am not sure how this could be improved without a major reworking. Nice job!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K7yuo.png)
