|
Published on NA EU KR SEA
By SUPEROUMAN
V 1.0
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +OUTDATED: MAP ANALYZER DOESN'T WORK ON 1.5 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MYtAU.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zX6iv.jpg)
Playable: 142x142
Tileset
+ Show Spoiler +Mar Sara Panels
Mar Sara Sand
Mar Sara Dirt
Mar Sara Rocky
Mar Sara Dirt Cracked
Mar Sara Concrete
Braxis Alpha Plates
Braxis Alpha Metal Detail
Mar Sara Organic Cliffs
Mar Sara Manmade Cliffs
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +OUTDATED ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D3EqR.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mAU5v.jpg)
Change Log
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The map looks really interesting, i have a couple of points id like to address:
i presume there are line of sight blockers to the mains right? that way a 4gate would be easier to hold (i still think lots of people would 4gate, might shift so that toss has to scout more in early game).
Secondly, is the whole air space available around the edges of the map? because if yes, then mutalisks would really be a pain to deal with for protoss (for terran too, but imo their defense is better than toss with ultra high muta numbers) since splitting up your army is impossible if there are more than 2-3 locations to cover.
I like how taking a third is a mixture of easy but very interesting with the small ramp leading to the third and the large space between your main and third, i guess though that for terran it should be relatively well defended with siege tanks, for protoss it should be manageable aswell. What i like in this map is that taking a fourth is not as horrendously difficult as for example on Antiga Shipyard. This all depends on air space though, i still think mutas would be really really strong, however the ling runby would be a lot harder to execute.
The main is really really large, just out of curiosity is there a reason for that? i think that could be easily abused for nydus/drops/proxies which can make the game really difficult, on the other side it gets really interesting aswell, so no criticisms there, just sayin :D
Overall i like the innovation in your mapmaking! i just have these 2 points (high master toss here, so i know im not perfect but i hope my discussion/map analysis is worth something :D )
Big block of text i know, but i like your creative thinking! Keep up the good work 
|
Looks Interesting.
I'd say increase the size of the ramp to the fourth, looks fairly easy to wall it off/defend and leave only 1 choke to cover 3 bases.
Also the one cardinal ramp at the top base looks bigger then the rest.
|
On July 31 2012 08:07 Dragonadern wrote:
The main is really really large, just out of curiosity is there a reason for that? i think that could be easily abused for nydus/drops/proxies which can make the game really difficult, on the other side it gets really interesting aswell, so no criticisms there, just sayin :D
From playing on it I think the main is actually not that big at all, but the analyzer counts the natural area as main as well?!
|
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
|
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever.
|
|
|
The bottom left main is has alot of more buildable space behind mineral line. This makes definding vs air better as it gives much more space to build turrets. Also the distance from middle of mineral line, to safe air zone seems to be by far the longest on the bottom left base meaning that its way easier to catch air units running away from there with ground to air units before enemy gets to safe zone.
Then again, it seems that the inbase natural is the furthest away from the bottom left main, and this is a disadvantage for obious reasons.
Are these features intentional and desinged to balance each other out, or are they both unintentional?
|
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
Do you realize this is a remake of a BW map of the same general design?
Anyway, just think of the natural as part of your main -- a free base in an extra big main base.
|
On July 31 2012 09:32 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. Do you realize this is a remake of a BW map of the same general design? Anyway, just think of the natural as part of your main -- a free base in an extra big main base.
Yeah, but BW can get away with inverted main ramps but SC2 can't. This isn't quite that though, so I'm curious as to how this plays out.
|
On July 31 2012 09:47 thenexusp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 09:32 EatThePath wrote:On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. Do you realize this is a remake of a BW map of the same general design? Anyway, just think of the natural as part of your main -- a free base in an extra big main base. Yeah, but BW can get away with inverted main ramps but SC2 can't. This isn't quite that though, so I'm curious as to how this plays out.
The concept with the AE pack was not to make the most balanced maps ever, but to explore creativity and push limits that don't get pushed. No one knows how that highground nat will work, who knows it could be like the most balanced thing ever, but we won't know if we don't try.
|
I thought this was the most interesting of the BW remakes. Good shyte.
|
Hooray! It's what I had in mind for a long time about 3 player maps, How in BW it was not completely symmetrical, yet it worked. So what not make it same for sc2!
I think you did a really good job on it, hopefully we can see more 3 player maps like this, using all three edges.
One suggestion: Extend the map bound on the bottom of the map, so that each side of the bases have equal air space?
I like how you didnt use cliffs when possible, since it's a 3 player map!
|
The analyzer shows some pathable terrain on the right border. It's too small to matter, but it would be best if it was fixed. Not sure what to make of the low ground main style coming from ESV, I'll have to watch some games on it.
|
Yeahy! Finally a Pro mapper is playing with some of my "toys"! Superouman, you are my new hero! LOS blockers into the main?! Alternate, rampless main chokes (that are still standard wallable)!? I guess it was only a matter of time, really... It's too bad you didn't pick one of my maps for the ProAm -- we would have gone places, my friend!
@ Ragoo -- yes, the analyzer will sometimes count portions outside of the "main" as part of the area of the main. I am unsure as to what makes this the case, but it has happened to me on main of my maps.
|
|
|
Superouman. You are f*cking awesome.
|
On July 31 2012 12:16 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
@ Ragoo -- yes, the analyzer will sometimes count portions outside of the "main" as part of the area of the main. I am unsure as to what makes this the case, but it has happened to me on main of my maps.
The way the analyzer calculates the size of the main base A is like this:
1. Find a tiny choke that is on every path from starting position A to other starting positions. "Tiny" is defined in the analyzer config files as "main-choke-threshold" or something similar.
2. Pretend that choke is blocked: how many playable cells are in the island with position A?
Basically the analyzer considers anything behind a tiny, wallable choke as "the main base." I thought that was pretty reasonable because it gives you an idea of how much space a player who walls in has to work with.
So on this map all that space in the high ground natural is counted as part of the main.
Anywho, I want to some high level replays on this map.
|
On July 31 2012 09:03 Sea_Food wrote:
The bottom left main is has alot of more buildable space behind mineral line. This makes definding vs air better as it gives much more space to build turrets. Also the distance from middle of mineral line, to safe air zone seems to be by far the longest on the bottom left base meaning that its way easier to catch air units running away from there with ground to air units before enemy gets to safe zone.
Yes it seems to me that the bottom left base could be the only one where you can prevent air from going in your base if you just have ground-to-air defense at the natural/third. If that's the case that would be quite imba imo.
|
On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out. You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever. The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed.
Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag7va.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ntow7.jpg)
