|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sKNeF.jpg)
The latest result of my compulsive mapmaking disorder...
This is my third SC2 map converted to BW, this time Tal'Darim Altar by LSPrime. The one thing I can see being a problem is the natural, which is siegeable from the low ground just like the original map - I'm not sure exactly how badly this would affect games.
It might not look perfectly symmetrical, but this is probably because it's based more on the 45 degree angles of the original map rather than the typical 30/60 degree angles of the BW isometric tilesets. This is my first rotationally symmetric 4 player map, so feel free to offer criticisms or suggestions.
Demonstration of symmetry
Download (Version 1.0 - broodwarmaps.net)
|
United States10558 Posts
can you explain the lack of gas at the third?
nice remake. will definitely want to play this.
|
Interesting but looks kinda tight. Are the naturals tankable from the ridges in the middle? Looks close on some of them. Would probably benefit balance wise if you removed those propellers in the middle and just let it be open.
|
On May 17 2012 09:12 FlaShFTW wrote:
can you explain the lack of gas at the third?
nice remake. will definitely want to play this.
Well, typically in BW maps the 3rd gas is a bit farther away than in SC2 maps. To compensate, I narrowed the chokes to the low-ground 4th bases. Also, the removal of the gas at the close 3rd means that the distance to the 3rd gas is about the same whether you're expanding clockwise or counterclockwise (or at least more similar than the original), which is beneficial for balance in close positions. And finally it discourages turtling on the high-ground pod with 3 bases, which would be easier in BW than SC2 due to the actual high ground advantage.
On May 17 2012 09:20 Chef wrote:
Interesting but looks kinda tight. Are the naturals tankable from the ridges in the middle? Looks close on some of them. Would probably benefit balance wise if you removed those propellers in the middle and just let it be open.
I guess tight is what you get when you shrink a 176x176 map down to 128x128... There were originally no propellers, but I decided I wanted to keep at least a hint of the completely separate side ramps of the original, but now I might remove them again, idk. Mining workers can't be sieged from the middle ridges, but some of the space behind the minerals can be hit, which probably isn't a significant problem.
|
United States10558 Posts
On May 17 2012 09:40 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 09:12 FlaShFTW wrote:
can you explain the lack of gas at the third?
nice remake. will definitely want to play this. Well, typically in BW maps the 3rd gas is a bit farther away than in SC2 maps. To compensate, I narrowed the chokes to the low-ground 4th bases. Also, the removal of the gas at the close 3rd means that the distance to the 3rd gas is about the same whether you're expanding clockwise or counterclockwise (or at least more similar than the original), which is beneficial for balance in close positions. And finally it discourages turtling on the high-ground pod with 3 bases, which would be easier in BW than SC2 due to the actual high ground advantage. Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 09:20 Chef wrote:
Interesting but looks kinda tight. Are the naturals tankable from the ridges in the middle? Looks close on some of them. Would probably benefit balance wise if you removed those propellers in the middle and just let it be open. I guess tight is what you get when you shrink a 176x176 map down to 128x128... There were originally no propellers, but I decided I wanted to keep at least a hint of the completely separate side ramps of the original, but now I might remove them again, idk. Mining workers can't be sieged from the middle ridges, but some of the space behind the minerals can be hit, which probably isn't a significant problem.
I don't agree. Just look at Jade or Fighting Spirit. Those have very close 3rd gases. Maybe make the gas like 1500 or something instead? Because I still think a gas should be placed at the third.
I tested the map, tanks can hit things like turrets behind the mineral lines from the ramp, but no matter when i put them on the ramp (could be bottom of ramp, or top) they cannot hit the mineral line.
|
Looks great but the mains are huge!
|
On May 17 2012 10:03 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 09:40 -NegativeZero- wrote:On May 17 2012 09:12 FlaShFTW wrote:
can you explain the lack of gas at the third?
nice remake. will definitely want to play this. Well, typically in BW maps the 3rd gas is a bit farther away than in SC2 maps. To compensate, I narrowed the chokes to the low-ground 4th bases. Also, the removal of the gas at the close 3rd means that the distance to the 3rd gas is about the same whether you're expanding clockwise or counterclockwise (or at least more similar than the original), which is beneficial for balance in close positions. And finally it discourages turtling on the high-ground pod with 3 bases, which would be easier in BW than SC2 due to the actual high ground advantage. On May 17 2012 09:20 Chef wrote:
Interesting but looks kinda tight. Are the naturals tankable from the ridges in the middle? Looks close on some of them. Would probably benefit balance wise if you removed those propellers in the middle and just let it be open. I guess tight is what you get when you shrink a 176x176 map down to 128x128... There were originally no propellers, but I decided I wanted to keep at least a hint of the completely separate side ramps of the original, but now I might remove them again, idk. Mining workers can't be sieged from the middle ridges, but some of the space behind the minerals can be hit, which probably isn't a significant problem. I don't agree. Just look at Jade or Fighting Spirit. Those have very close 3rd gases. Maybe make the gas like 1500 or something instead? Because I still think a gas should be placed at the third. I tested the map, tanks can hit things like turrets behind the mineral lines from the ramp, but no matter when i put them on the ramp (could be bottom of ramp, or top) they cannot hit the mineral line.
I don't know about SC2 maps, but I feel like BW maps even in modern times include a good mix of easy third gas (depending on match-up) vs relatively harder. Some maps with min-only as the closest 3rd base include Aztec, Gladiator, the impending revision to Ground Zero. Even Jade is being adjusted, as you mentioned, to 1500 gas.
|
On May 17 2012 10:08 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 10:03 FlaShFTW wrote:On May 17 2012 09:40 -NegativeZero- wrote:On May 17 2012 09:12 FlaShFTW wrote:
can you explain the lack of gas at the third?
nice remake. will definitely want to play this. Well, typically in BW maps the 3rd gas is a bit farther away than in SC2 maps. To compensate, I narrowed the chokes to the low-ground 4th bases. Also, the removal of the gas at the close 3rd means that the distance to the 3rd gas is about the same whether you're expanding clockwise or counterclockwise (or at least more similar than the original), which is beneficial for balance in close positions. And finally it discourages turtling on the high-ground pod with 3 bases, which would be easier in BW than SC2 due to the actual high ground advantage. On May 17 2012 09:20 Chef wrote:
Interesting but looks kinda tight. Are the naturals tankable from the ridges in the middle? Looks close on some of them. Would probably benefit balance wise if you removed those propellers in the middle and just let it be open. I guess tight is what you get when you shrink a 176x176 map down to 128x128... There were originally no propellers, but I decided I wanted to keep at least a hint of the completely separate side ramps of the original, but now I might remove them again, idk. Mining workers can't be sieged from the middle ridges, but some of the space behind the minerals can be hit, which probably isn't a significant problem. I don't agree. Just look at Jade or Fighting Spirit. Those have very close 3rd gases. Maybe make the gas like 1500 or something instead? Because I still think a gas should be placed at the third. I tested the map, tanks can hit things like turrets behind the mineral lines from the ramp, but no matter when i put them on the ramp (could be bottom of ramp, or top) they cannot hit the mineral line. I don't know about SC2 maps, but I feel like BW maps even in modern times include a good mix of easy third gas (depending on match-up) vs relatively harder. Some maps with min-only as the closest 3rd base include Aztec, Gladiator, the impending revision to Ground Zero. Even Jade is being adjusted, as you mentioned, to 1500 gas.
Also, wasn't the third expo gas recently removed from Jade because it was too easy to get?
Very cool conversion, still waiting for Ribbon's map conversion tournament 
|
Here's some blatant theory just by looking at the map without having tried it out at all!
... oh wait, I didn't look at the map properly and actually my point is pretty void.
Ok it's much better than I thought, excellent! The idea is if I spawn T2 (equivalent for all spots) I can make a horizontal line of tanks in front of 1 o'clock right on top of that circular doodad .... and I get 4 bases. SWEET! If I spawn T2 vs anything11, I will smile and be happy. It'll be tough to secure 12 so screw it cause 3 is in my pocket, that line of tanks I was talking about? Well now it sieges the natural too! <:
Solution? Well you don't want to prevent tanks sieging up onto the natural from the low-ground directly outside - that's a major play on this map. However, it'll be really bad if the tanks can reach the nat if they're sat on the ridge. I recommend scootching the 11 natural left and down, maybe and or moving the propeller away a bit as well.
The alleyway to the 3rd needs a non-droppable cliff, this is really important for muta harass.
I like that the 3rd is mineral only (hurts Zergs <: ), the question is, do you want Z taking that quick, or not? If no, put a Xel-Naga there (or more interestingly some stacked creep colonies!).
The main feels a bit fat an flabby, scootching the nat->3rd alleyway into the main would open up the centre a bit.
The 4th? I dunno, it feels a little sketchy that you could walk an HT to the high-ground and storm. Then again, lol, there are so few SC2 players creative to make that work I've never seen it happen ;P
OK here's a picture, the changes are symmetric to all positions ofc!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sMHCN.jpg)
See the pretty smiley and the tanks. Bottom tank no-no, top tank allowed. The blue dashed line bottom right is the one I was mentioning. The Green spot below the nat->3rd of top left MUST be un-walkable high-high ground, cause that's how the origional plays (unless you wanna deviate). It moves with everything else (i.e. its good size, just not high enough). Check the main size, but they feel a little fat, so I 'tucked' in a bit of that belly, in green at the bottom of top left main.
All of purple's selection can be moved up to the dashed turquoise outline. It doesn't really matter if the 3rd and main are only one trench apart, doesn't change game. This also distances that 4th from abuse-from-dei-mains (heck that gas could get imba'd by a dragoon, least alone a tank.
A question about the propellers. NO Chef I don't believe they should be removed, screw that La Mancha is much more interesting than Luna (yeah there are more differences, mainly, gas, but the main one is the layout of the centre.) To prove my point, La mancha has roughly the same shape, both of map and of matchup ballance, except it's closer to 50/50 by 2%, so it's better (PvT wise). If the natural-moving (to the dotted outline, follow the arrows) isn't sufficient to prevent tanks shelling from high-ground->high-ground, then you can also move the propellers down along the ridges as shown (dotted outline).
Apart from that, and maybe in a week once my exams are done and I've finished the NaDa's Body song I'll play a few, OP Teamliquid!
What do you guys think of my suggestions (I'm looking at you Mr. "So I played two games with Trozz on this map and it finally hit me what could be done to make the Zerg sunken rush less powerful.")? Valid, load'a bull?
EDIT: I saw the comments on BWMaps and it's a good point. I suggest for bottom left (top right too) scootch the natural Iike I drew so make it less rectangular and anorexic, and more square-ish.
EDDIT: well you don't need to move the propellers if the tanking problem doesn't exist, but still scootch the nat. Also, since the nat is moved, you can put a bit more land on that flat bit behind it.
Question of gas: Zerg need a gas they can secure with lurkers, and that 4th IS a bit far away (plus, completely abuseable). Making it low-gas is a good idea, but another one, harking back to the normal SC2, is you should narrow the main->nat choke so it's easier for lurkers to defend + doing walls. Think, as narrow as the main-nat choke on Eye of the Storm, 'cept, wallable!
|
10387 Posts
On May 17 2012 10:03 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 09:40 -NegativeZero- wrote:On May 17 2012 09:12 FlaShFTW wrote:
can you explain the lack of gas at the third?
nice remake. will definitely want to play this. Well, typically in BW maps the 3rd gas is a bit farther away than in SC2 maps. To compensate, I narrowed the chokes to the low-ground 4th bases. Also, the removal of the gas at the close 3rd means that the distance to the 3rd gas is about the same whether you're expanding clockwise or counterclockwise (or at least more similar than the original), which is beneficial for balance in close positions. And finally it discourages turtling on the high-ground pod with 3 bases, which would be easier in BW than SC2 due to the actual high ground advantage. On May 17 2012 09:20 Chef wrote:
Interesting but looks kinda tight. Are the naturals tankable from the ridges in the middle? Looks close on some of them. Would probably benefit balance wise if you removed those propellers in the middle and just let it be open. I guess tight is what you get when you shrink a 176x176 map down to 128x128... There were originally no propellers, but I decided I wanted to keep at least a hint of the completely separate side ramps of the original, but now I might remove them again, idk. Mining workers can't be sieged from the middle ridges, but some of the space behind the minerals can be hit, which probably isn't a significant problem. I don't agree. Just look at Jade or Fighting Spirit. Those have very close 3rd gases. Maybe make the gas like 1500 or something instead? Because I still think a gas should be placed at the third. I tested the map, tanks can hit things like turrets behind the mineral lines from the ramp, but no matter when i put them on the ramp (could be bottom of ramp, or top) they cannot hit the mineral line.
those are maps are offset by the difficulty of securing a fourth base. On this map it seems rather easy getting quick 4bases, like Circuit Breaker, or Beltway
|
HOLY SHIT, I was trying to figure out how to get a Tal'Darim remake to work for a while but this is absolutely beastmode. With the fourths, yeah, it was going to be pretty impossible to fix it positionally with the size of BW maps. Alternatively, you could push the 6 and 12 bases away from the edge of the map. Might have to fix the relationship with the mains but it's doable. I should check BWMN more often. This is a great remake. Not perfect, but almost to the best you can get.
|
bloody ridge had a 'foward nat' as well, but i dont remember too many tank cheese on that map .. if at all
|
I think people worry about tanks too much in general. If you dig up the thread where Battle Royal was previewed, people were predicting tank dominance on that map
|
Keep the propellers in the centre!
|
|
|
No destructible rocks? =O
|
On May 18 2012 02:03 stink123 wrote:
No destructible rocks? =O
You mean destructible temples/generators? I don't they are needed on this map.
|
Tal'Darim Altar generally has destructible rocks blocking the 3rd location. People hate them though.
Also, you might want to adjust gas locations at 12 oclock and 6oclock. I forget which, but one location has slower gas mining, resulting in 4 workers required to saturate vs 3. With those bases its not a big deal, but just something to think about.
|
On May 18 2012 02:10 stink123 wrote:
Tal'Darim Altar generally has destructible rocks blocking the 3rd location. People hate them though.
Also, you might want to adjust gas locations at 12 oclock and 6oclock. I forget which, but one location has slower gas mining, resulting in 4 workers required to saturate vs 3. With those bases its not a big deal, but just something to think about.
Depends on the version.
The original GSL version had a 6m1g expansion at the 3rd without rocks, but Blizzard's ladder version is an 8m2g expansion with rocks. Pretty annoying, as it really messes up the original dynamics of the map.
Anyways, fantastic creation. Much better than my old maps haha. Keep up the good work.
|
I feel like there should be a gas at the second nat. If not: its a pretty damn hard defended mineral only. I have no idea how this would play out pvt but for a Z it would be soo hard to get that crucial third gas, especially versus T. 2 out of 4 (at least) naturals are siegeable im assuming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
