|
Rapyuta
Published on NA EU
By SUPEROUMAN
V 1.0
Special thing about the map:
- The third can be attacked without air vision from behind the wall.
- The map split isn't that obvious because of the position of the four middle expands and towers. In cross positions, it's easier to take the close air position instead of the close ground.
- Rocks have 1000hp because i originally wanted them to block the close position short path but it forced me to use a one-sized ramp there so i enlarged the ramp and divided the rocks in two halves.
Playable: 156x156
Map features:
Main and natural:
+ Show Spoiler +
Third expand:
+ Show Spoiler +
Fourth and the area in front of the natural:
+ Show Spoiler +
Middle with a xel'naga tower:
+ Show Spoiler +
Area between the naturals in close positions:
+ Show Spoiler +
Tileset
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hmSMb.jpg)
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +
Change Log
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Totally forgot to mention that the rocks have 1000hp since there are two on the path
|
Meh, I am not convinced that this is a good map.
Everything looks so chokey, especially the middle with all these trees looks like a complete mess.
I also dislike how everything is just so full of bricks and trees etc, and height levels have very, very similar aesthetics making it a hard to read map imo.
And rocks to prevent close positions...
I mean it's not Blizzard horrible but definitely not one of my favorites or anything I would get exctied about.
+ Show Spoiler +P.S.: You invested time into a 4p mirrored map in SC 2. You should feel ashamed! Fuck 4p mirrored!!!1
|
Great to see this finally released! The changes from the previous version I saw have really taken this map from 'looking balanced but with some awkward bits' to 'holy crap I really hope some tournaments pick this up'.
Finally a 4p mirror map that is balanced for all spawn positions. The tournament map pool has been crying out for one for a long time. My only worry is the 3rd and it's non-standard nature, although I think it could lead to some really interesting dynamics. Can colossi walk over the wall behind the 3rd? The XNT area is really smart.
The aesthetics must have taken an age. I hope they don't negatively impact performance too much. How does it look when it's all creeped up?
|
It will be a huge pain to engage tank positions in the middle because of all the trees. Ultras especially are going to fail path a lot. I'm not sure this is the best map to experiment with the "copious spotty trees" idea.
Not sure the rocks should be 1000hp. The distance is quite close. How has this been in testing? Did you try with normal rocks at any point?
I like the concept but I think I have to go with ragoo on this one. Would like to see some games.
|
On September 19 2012 00:04 Ragoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +P.S.: You invested time into a 4p mirrored map in SC 2. You should feel ashamed! Fuck 4p mirrored!!!1
I don't really know what you have against 4p mirror maps, other than the notion that they can't work, which is wrong.
I'd say overall this map has a very clever use of space, and manages to get the proportions for the spawn points just right as well. I do have one issue with it though - the Xel'Naga towers. It seems to me like they'll end up like they do on Metalopolis(assume for a second that all spawns on that map were ok), where the tower's vision becomes a lot less relevant in close ground positions. I've been thinking about it some, and the solution might just be to use 4 towers, like on Star Station. I don't know how that would work on this map(the middle area is a bit hard to read tbh), but it's not as big an issue.
As for its openness, it does look chokey like Ragoo says, but I think the idea is to encourage positional plays and flanks, just as on Cloud Kingdom. It is a fine line to walk though, so I do worry somewhat about that. Wait and see, I guess. Also a clever trick with the aesthetics, using a foggy sort of look to distinguish between the levels. It's also very pretty close-up.
Looks very good overall.
|
It looks like the middle has a 3x3 blocker where it should be a 2x2 blocker, is that correct?
I like the doodad wall at the third. I know that this is the least standard part of this map, but hey, that's what does it for me 
Close spawns still seems like it won't go past 4 base without ninja expands, sort of like antiga even in cross positions, so I guess that's okay.
As beautiful as it is I agree that it's a lille hard to distinguish between the levels, even with the fog, though I haven't played it in-game at all.
|
So you made that texture set work together ? Oo
You're my hero.
|
On September 19 2012 04:10 ArcticRaven wrote:
So you made that texture set work together ? Oo
You're my hero.
Those were my thoughts as well. It's very good looking, but seeing that tileset, I had to scratch my head.
Also, what are the nat-nat rush distances for the various positions?
|
Idk about balance, but it's pretty and the middle is interesting. It's a well-done temple. "Castle in the Sky".. what is with superouman and sky-related names? :-P
|
Not really a fan of the map layout, but I do love the aesthetics. To be more specific, the things that I don't really like are:
1. The third base design makes me uncomfortable. I can't actually fault it from any balance/gameplay standpoint without any evidence; just gut reaction. Feel free to ignore this subjective criticism.
2. Close positions.
- Attack path is a straight bee line with short distance -- distance issue being caused by flawed Metalopolis-style layout.
- Rocks used as a crutch to lengthen the rush distance in the early game and help balance the spawn, but does not help the issue in mid/late game.
- The third bases, being harass-able without need for air/high-ground vision, are particularly susceptible to pushes via rocked-off path.
3. Fourth bases are awkward in that you're forced to expand toward your opponent in a really awkward location IMO
4. Two watchtowers cover all possible ground attack paths in non-close positions
5. Close-by-air shenanigans, Metalopolis-style
Just my thoughts. All in all it feels like you took the terrain layout of Metalopolis and tried to make it not so bad in a different way than Metropolis attempted, but I really feel the layout concept itself just doesn't work well, be it Metalopolis, Metropolis, or this map. :c
|
The tileset is interesting but really it just looks like another temple style map. Brown and green, yeah. While I don't think the textures are outstanding the usage of doodads is very nice.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I'm intrigued, will have to test in game to gauge proportions correctly.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 19:51 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Not really a fan of the map layout, but I do love the aesthetics. To be more specific, the things that I don't really like are: 1. The third base design makes me uncomfortable. I can't actually fault it from any balance/gameplay standpoint without any evidence; just gut reaction. Feel free to ignore this subjective criticism. 2. Close positions. - Attack path is a straight bee line with short distance -- distance issue being caused by flawed Metalopolis-style layout.
- Rocks used as a crutch to lengthen the rush distance in the early game and help balance the spawn, but does not help the issue in mid/late game.
- The third bases, being harass-able without need for air/high-ground vision, are particularly susceptible to pushes via rocked-off path.
3. Fourth bases are awkward in that you're forced to expand toward your opponent in a really awkward location IMO 4. Two watchtowers cover all possible ground attack paths in non-close positions 5. Close-by-air shenanigans, Metalopolis-style Just my thoughts. All in all it feels like you took the terrain layout of Metalopolis and tried to make it not so bad in a different way than Metropolis attempted, but I really feel the layout concept itself just doesn't work well, be it Metalopolis, Metropolis, or this map. :c
Welcome to making a 4p mirror map
I disagree with most of the criticisms laid out in this thread. I haven't played the map and it's difficult to tell proportions from an overview but I really don't think the rush distances are too bad. The rocks don't make the rush distances that much longer, they just help the flow of the early/mid game. I think 4th to 4th distance in close positions looks about the same as 4th to 5th on Cloud Kingdom and we have all seen that that can create some really awesome back and forth tug of war games. Let's not also forget that it doesn't have to create really long macro games in all positions, the close spawns here are infinitely better than all the 4p maps we have had in the tournament map pool so far, and probably the best I have seen in a 4p mirror map. As for the 3rd, I like it, it strikes a good balance. It encourages you to push out to take engagements rather than turtle.
|
On September 19 2012 21:01 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 19:51 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Not really a fan of the map layout, but I do love the aesthetics. To be more specific, the things that I don't really like are: 1. The third base design makes me uncomfortable. I can't actually fault it from any balance/gameplay standpoint without any evidence; just gut reaction. Feel free to ignore this subjective criticism. 2. Close positions. - Attack path is a straight bee line with short distance -- distance issue being caused by flawed Metalopolis-style layout.
- Rocks used as a crutch to lengthen the rush distance in the early game and help balance the spawn, but does not help the issue in mid/late game.
- The third bases, being harass-able without need for air/high-ground vision, are particularly susceptible to pushes via rocked-off path.
3. Fourth bases are awkward in that you're forced to expand toward your opponent in a really awkward location IMO 4. Two watchtowers cover all possible ground attack paths in non-close positions 5. Close-by-air shenanigans, Metalopolis-style Just my thoughts. All in all it feels like you took the terrain layout of Metalopolis and tried to make it not so bad in a different way than Metropolis attempted, but I really feel the layout concept itself just doesn't work well, be it Metalopolis, Metropolis, or this map. :c Welcome to making a 4p mirror map I disagree with most of the criticisms laid out in this thread. I haven't played the map and it's difficult to tell proportions from an overview but I really don't think the rush distances are too bad. The rocks don't make the rush distances that much longer, they just help the flow of the early/mid game. I think 4th to 4th distance in close positions looks about the same as 4th to 5th on Cloud Kingdom and we have all seen that that can create some really awesome back and forth tug of war games. Let's not also forget that it doesn't have to create really long macro games in all positions, the close spawns here are infinitely better than all the 4p maps we have had in the tournament map pool so far, and probably the best I have seen in a 4p mirror map. As for the 3rd, I like it, it strikes a good balance. It encourages you to push out to take engagements rather than turtle.
The map is a decent bit larger overall, but the layout inherently makes close positions pretty darn close regardless. Superouman does a good job trying to mitigate the issue as much as possible, but I still feel the very concept is flawed just due to how the Metalopolis-style ends up putting those close position bases so close together while having a straight path connecting them.
4th to 4th distances do seem similar to those Cloud Kingdom distances between 4th and 5th, but you also have to remember that Cloud Kingdom gave alternative 4th/5th locations that increased the distance significantly when players expanded across rather than adjacent, where this map does not. With every game having such a short 4th to 4th distance I don't see how you're really going to get a 4th without doing ninja expansions -- or getting lucky with cross positions, perhaps.
|
On September 20 2012 02:14 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 21:01 OxyGenesis wrote:On September 19 2012 19:51 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Not really a fan of the map layout, but I do love the aesthetics. To be more specific, the things that I don't really like are: 1. The third base design makes me uncomfortable. I can't actually fault it from any balance/gameplay standpoint without any evidence; just gut reaction. Feel free to ignore this subjective criticism. 2. Close positions. - Attack path is a straight bee line with short distance -- distance issue being caused by flawed Metalopolis-style layout.
- Rocks used as a crutch to lengthen the rush distance in the early game and help balance the spawn, but does not help the issue in mid/late game.
- The third bases, being harass-able without need for air/high-ground vision, are particularly susceptible to pushes via rocked-off path.
3. Fourth bases are awkward in that you're forced to expand toward your opponent in a really awkward location IMO 4. Two watchtowers cover all possible ground attack paths in non-close positions 5. Close-by-air shenanigans, Metalopolis-style Just my thoughts. All in all it feels like you took the terrain layout of Metalopolis and tried to make it not so bad in a different way than Metropolis attempted, but I really feel the layout concept itself just doesn't work well, be it Metalopolis, Metropolis, or this map. :c Welcome to making a 4p mirror map I disagree with most of the criticisms laid out in this thread. I haven't played the map and it's difficult to tell proportions from an overview but I really don't think the rush distances are too bad. The rocks don't make the rush distances that much longer, they just help the flow of the early/mid game. I think 4th to 4th distance in close positions looks about the same as 4th to 5th on Cloud Kingdom and we have all seen that that can create some really awesome back and forth tug of war games. Let's not also forget that it doesn't have to create really long macro games in all positions, the close spawns here are infinitely better than all the 4p maps we have had in the tournament map pool so far, and probably the best I have seen in a 4p mirror map. As for the 3rd, I like it, it strikes a good balance. It encourages you to push out to take engagements rather than turtle. The map is a decent bit larger overall, but the layout inherently makes close positions pretty darn close regardless. Superouman does a good job trying to mitigate the issue as much as possible, but I still feel the very concept is flawed just due to how the Metalopolis-style ends up putting those close position bases so close together while having a straight path connecting them. 4th to 4th distances do seem similar to those Cloud Kingdom distances between 4th and 5th, but you also have to remember that Cloud Kingdom gave alternative 4th/5th locations that increased the distance significantly when players expanded across rather than adjacent, where this map does not. With every game having such a short 4th to 4th distance I don't see how you're really going to get a 4th without doing ninja expansions -- or getting lucky with cross positions, perhaps.
Antiga has an even harder 4th and has been in the map pool for well over a year. The whole point in a map with multiple spawns is to give varied games.
|
On September 20 2012 07:11 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:14 iamcaustic wrote:On September 19 2012 21:01 OxyGenesis wrote:On September 19 2012 19:51 iamcaustic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Not really a fan of the map layout, but I do love the aesthetics. To be more specific, the things that I don't really like are: 1. The third base design makes me uncomfortable. I can't actually fault it from any balance/gameplay standpoint without any evidence; just gut reaction. Feel free to ignore this subjective criticism. 2. Close positions. - Attack path is a straight bee line with short distance -- distance issue being caused by flawed Metalopolis-style layout.
- Rocks used as a crutch to lengthen the rush distance in the early game and help balance the spawn, but does not help the issue in mid/late game.
- The third bases, being harass-able without need for air/high-ground vision, are particularly susceptible to pushes via rocked-off path.
3. Fourth bases are awkward in that you're forced to expand toward your opponent in a really awkward location IMO 4. Two watchtowers cover all possible ground attack paths in non-close positions 5. Close-by-air shenanigans, Metalopolis-style Just my thoughts. All in all it feels like you took the terrain layout of Metalopolis and tried to make it not so bad in a different way than Metropolis attempted, but I really feel the layout concept itself just doesn't work well, be it Metalopolis, Metropolis, or this map. :c Welcome to making a 4p mirror map I disagree with most of the criticisms laid out in this thread. I haven't played the map and it's difficult to tell proportions from an overview but I really don't think the rush distances are too bad. The rocks don't make the rush distances that much longer, they just help the flow of the early/mid game. I think 4th to 4th distance in close positions looks about the same as 4th to 5th on Cloud Kingdom and we have all seen that that can create some really awesome back and forth tug of war games. Let's not also forget that it doesn't have to create really long macro games in all positions, the close spawns here are infinitely better than all the 4p maps we have had in the tournament map pool so far, and probably the best I have seen in a 4p mirror map. As for the 3rd, I like it, it strikes a good balance. It encourages you to push out to take engagements rather than turtle. The map is a decent bit larger overall, but the layout inherently makes close positions pretty darn close regardless. Superouman does a good job trying to mitigate the issue as much as possible, but I still feel the very concept is flawed just due to how the Metalopolis-style ends up putting those close position bases so close together while having a straight path connecting them. 4th to 4th distances do seem similar to those Cloud Kingdom distances between 4th and 5th, but you also have to remember that Cloud Kingdom gave alternative 4th/5th locations that increased the distance significantly when players expanded across rather than adjacent, where this map does not. With every game having such a short 4th to 4th distance I don't see how you're really going to get a 4th without doing ninja expansions -- or getting lucky with cross positions, perhaps. Antiga has an even harder 4th and has been in the map pool for well over a year. The whole point in a map with multiple spawns is to give varied games.
Antiga is also a pretty terrible map, and only becomes remotely playable for tournaments by disabling everything except cross-spawns. I don't really see that as a valid argument. I would definitely rank this map as being better than Antiga any day.
Edit: one thing I will say, though, is that if the map is intentionally made by design to discourage 4+ base games and focus on aggressive, early/mid game plays, then that's fine (e.g. I designed my map Secluded Mesa with the intention that very few games would ever see all 5 bases being taken). It's up to the mapmaker to determine how he/she wants the map to play out. My opinions come squarely on the idea that 4p maps are usually designed to be more macro-oriented in nature, in which case I find this map would make it quite difficult for macro play to occur for the reasons I've stated.
|
Sweet Jesus Lord... That's a whole lot of details you got going on there. It struck me like the sound of the initial thunder that gives way to the very first raindrops in the middle of a summer night.
How long did it take you to make this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oXP6e.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/derxM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ss8Wi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f1Dn9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9yedE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MY2dG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wEaZv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vVMo2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vyBn9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qX2o1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IteU1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L6yCw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QfSMS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h7bkJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qtgsr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TsT0u.jpg)
