|
Secluded Mesa(by Travis "Caustic" Willis)Development of this map has been abandoned. This thread remains for historical purposes.Tileset: Ulaan + Aiur Map Size: 148x124 Published on: [NA] [EU] [SEA] [KR]+ Show Spoiler [Publishing Legend] +Green means the map is live and up-to-date in the region.
Blue means the map is live in the region but on an outdated version.
Red means the map is not published to the region. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VgLyMl.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/chmfGl.jpg)
Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler +
Map Concept:
Generally, I wanted to make a map that felt "solid", like something you'd see on the ladder or in tournaments. Aside from that, I wanted to reward the player with better positional play. The way it works here, you could say is similar to positional play on Cloud Kingdom; you have a select number of major paths you can take, and they all connect into one another in some way. It's up to the individual to keep tabs on the different paths and know where the opponent's army is, in order to avoid getting caught out of position.
Another key point to this map is the choice of thirds. While it looks like there's one obvious choice for the third (12/6 o'clock), the risk that base runs is its sheer openness. While it works well enough for aggressive players, it's not well suited for those that like (or need) to defend. For strategies that require a more defendable third base, they might find 9/3 o'clock more suitable. The tradeoff here is that it's a slightly longer distance and more "out of the way", so to speak, so resources have to be devoted toward defending it (in contrast to 12/6 o'clock, which will be naturally defended simply by having your army in a more forward position).
It's a map that makes you think about where you expand and why.
Contact Info:
Follow me on Twitter @iamcaustic
|
This is my favourite green + ulaan map I've seen, very straightforward but with beauty. ^^
I like the terrain mostly, but the expansion layout and base count is... unappetizing. You only have 5 bases, and when you have all 5 the distance across them all is basically the width of the whole map, which is wider than it is tall. I can tell you try to accommodate this with the narrowness around the the corners, but I feel like that will just create impossible-to-engage situations, which leads (at best) to base trading, which should never be a de facto strategy.
Probably more acutely problematic is the 3rd base options, which are both very hard for protoss vs zerg, and a little difficult generally in any matchup vs a 2base timing. If there were rocks at the little shrubby pathway at the 3 and 9 oclock bases, I think it'd be "fine" -- on par with some current competition maps.
Nevertheless it definitely comes off as "solid", so good job there. I like it but I think it limits players' options a little too much because of the 3rd bases and lategame situation, even as it offers some interesting things at the same time. Really like the middle and the way the pathways feed into the alternate attacking angles.
|
seconding everything as above. solid map, but worried about the 3rds as well. i think in this case some gameplay info would help better understand the flow of the map and how each option might work out.
|
On September 07 2012 13:06 EatThePath wrote:
This is my favourite green + ulaan map I've seen, very straightforward but with beauty. ^^
I like the terrain mostly, but the expansion layout and base count is... unappetizing. You only have 5 bases, and when you have all 5 the distance across them all is basically the width of the whole map, which is wider than it is tall. I can tell you try to accommodate this with the narrowness around the the corners, but I feel like that will just create impossible-to-engage situations, which leads (at best) to base trading, which should never be a de facto strategy.
Probably more acutely problematic is the 3rd base options, which are both very hard for protoss vs zerg, and a little difficult generally in any matchup vs a 2base timing. If there were rocks at the little shrubby pathway at the 3 and 9 oclock bases, I think it'd be "fine" -- on par with some current competition maps.
Nevertheless it definitely comes off as "solid", so good job there. I like it but I think it limits players' options a little too much because of the 3rd bases and lategame situation, even as it offers some interesting things at the same time. Really like the middle and the way the pathways feed into the alternate attacking angles.
Thank you for the aesthetic compliment! 
Regarding third bases: The defendable 3/9 o'clock bases aren't actually that awful PvZ IMO. It's quite similar to Antiga in terms of concept when defending: sit your army between the nat/third ramps and use forcefields/terrain to slice up the attacking army. You'll note the slit in the terrain there; it's to help facilitate forcefields. For attacking, the second path into the third, while open by default, is much more difficult to exploit due to the requirement to have your army completely split to attack from both fronts (on Antiga you can just bounce back and forth) and the size of the choke being much smaller.
Regarding base count: The map isn't designed for hour-long macro games. Even so, 5 bases can easily get you 30+ minute games if neither player is able to kill the other, which is actually a rarity in SC2 on maps not called Metropolis. This is especially true considering that 5th bases will likely to be taken later rather than sooner, to avoid spreading yourself out too thinly. I'm of the opinion that 6+ bases per player are not necessary for a map unless it's designed to be macro-oriented, which any 2-player map really shouldn't be -- that's best for 4-player maps IMO. How often do you see players manage to acquire all 6 bases on Cloud Kingdom? Ohana only has 5 bases per player as well. How often do you see players take the middle 6th bases on Daybreak? So on and so forth.
|
I really like it, however, the corner expansions looks to be very far away. Perhaps relocate the resources a little towards "home".
Also, even if you don't want to put a full base anywhere, would you consider a half base?
|
On September 07 2012 16:11 Duvon wrote:
I really like it, however, the corner expansions looks to be very far away. Perhaps relocate the resources a little towards "home".
Also, even if you don't want to put a full base anywhere, would you consider a half base?
A half base where and for what purpose? o.o
|
your Country52798 Posts
Since FlaShFTW is apparently not here, I'd like to comment for him.
The thirds are in my opinion unacceptable. The high ground third is not very well defended with an army because it's simultaneously far away and choked, so only mobile splash armies are very good at defending it.
The lower thirds are too open to be considered as a good third, more like a fourth base.
To fix this, you could either move the highground third towards the natural, or you could make the lowground third easier to defend.
|
On September 08 2012 04:31 The_Templar wrote:
The high ground third is not very well defended with an army because it's simultaneously far away and choked, so only mobile splash armies are very good at defending it.
I'd like to know the thought process behind this, and how your conclusion is reached. There seems to be little to no consideration to the terrain between the natural and high-ground third, as well as the attack paths toward the high-ground third and how they play out. You also offer no explanation for why/how "mobile splash" armies (a term that is very poorly defined; what kind of compositions/strategies are you referring to?) are the only viable defence for this base, or how adjusting the distance slightly would fix this perceived issue.
In contrast, I've explained in a previous post how defence for this base is intended to work in the most difficult-to-take-a-third matchup: PvZ. Your post implies that my explanation not viable, but offers no reasoning for why as it goes completely unaddressed.
If you'd like to expand on your criticisms so that I can make some actual use of them, I'm all ears.
|
Are there no Xelnaga watch towers? That seems really odd, considering that those things are a trademark of SC2 maps.
The third base looks really hard to defend because there are no chokes; it's really open, so defending with FFs would be really hard. For Z, I think it would actually be quite easy because of the number of paths you can take from the nat/main to the third, and since there are no chokes, forge FE into gateway timing attacks with force fields wouldn't be able to stop the flow of defensive zerglings and/or roaches. I stand pretty neutral for Terran in terms of defence of the third.
Everything else looks great, looking forward to try out this map soon! Jeez, these types of maps are so damn popular these days though, with the main/nat/third/fourth junction like that.
|
On September 08 2012 05:28 sorrowptoss wrote:
Are there no Xelnaga watch towers? That seems really odd, considering that those things are a trademark of SC2 maps.
There are two Xel'Naga Watchtowers on this map. You'll find them just north/south of each natural ramp.
On September 08 2012 05:28 sorrowptoss wrote:
The third base looks really hard to defend because there are no chokes; it's really open, so defending with FFs would be really hard. For Z, I think it would actually be quite easy because of the number of paths you can take from the nat/main to the third, and since there are no chokes, forge FE into gateway timing attacks with force fields wouldn't be able to stop the flow of defensive zerglings and/or roaches. I stand pretty neutral for Terran in terms of defence of the third.
This issue is addressed in the OP under "Map Concept". You can start at the second paragraph to skip right to the explanation for how third bases work on this map.
On September 08 2012 05:28 sorrowptoss wrote:
Everything else looks great, looking forward to try out this map soon! Jeez, these types of maps are so damn popular these days though, with the main/nat/third/fourth junction like that.
Speaking of map concept, you might find yourself pleasantly surprised in this regard; the base progression isn't necessarily as straightforward as that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
