|
Frozen Shore (Beta) for HotS
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fqE6huR.jpg)
author Samro
spawns 4
concepts all spawns enabled; variation through spawning positions
size 168x140
rush distances approx. 29/32/4 choke to choke (in front of nat)
rock mechanic 1 rock tower and ice rocks form a double rock mechanic that can be used defensively or offensively for or against third and fourth
rock mechanic 2 6x6 ice rocks can be taken away for a wide ramp and also give path for units to slip by XWT
XWT one central
I do consider the map a beta. I am happy with how it plays, but there might be technical or visual flaws. If there is some problem please let me know.
theme+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2773/5731167812_831303bebd.jpg) thx meltage
--------------
TO PLAY THE MAP SEARCH FOR 'SAMRO' OR 'FROZEN SHORE'
|
|
|
The only things I would change is to make this area more open
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KEON26m.png)
And ban vertical spawns.
|
On February 05 2013 06:33 lorestarcraft wrote:The only things I would change is to make this area more open + Show Spoiler +And ban vertical spawns.
I disagree. It provides a nice little defensive posture area for the bases located just off the mains and vertical spawns in HotS should be perfectly fine. The only thing I might be worried about right now is the oracle but protoss has to delve so far into those economically and the way your resource line is set up, I think oracles and other early air harass would have diminished returns compared to other maps that may be ported over from WoL to HotS. Good set-up. Inspires me to try and 1-up you on the mirror design w/ close air! (But I probably won't -- at least not today) :D
The one thing that might worry me on this map is early siege tank pushes and that is because of how much highground control they should be able to get. But than there is SOOOO much open space that you can flank them so it equals out I think.
|
Looks good! Makes me want to get back into map making.
I think the circle area may cause issues, but then again, if you are using that part of the map in a game, there are issues anyway - maps shouldn't have to be lowest common denominator; players should choose where they want to be, and where to defend/attack.
|
Use of space could probably be improved but aesthetics seem good and at least it's mirrored so it's not imbalanced right off the bat like 99% of rotationals.
|
On February 05 2013 07:11 SigmaFiE wrote:I disagree. It provides a nice little defensive posture area for the bases located just off the mains and vertical spawns in HotS should be perfectly fine. The only thing I might be worried about right now is the oracle but protoss has to delve so far into those economically and the way your resource line is set up, I think oracles and other early air harass would have diminished returns compared to other maps that may be ported over from WoL to HotS. Good set-up. Inspires me to try and 1-up you on the mirror design w/ close air! (But I probably won't -- at least not today) :D The one thing that might worry me on this map is early siege tank pushes and that is because of how much highground control they should be able to get. But than there is SOOOO much open space that you can flank them so it equals out I think.
I was more worried about the XWT covering all viable army paths.
|
How far exactly does the tower reach? I'm wondering if it reaches these paths:
+ Show Spoiler +
I don't think it does, but I think it would be cool if they were covered. That way, if you want to sneak past in vertical spots, you have to take the rush path through that very narrow middle bit. Though, I'm not sure that can be made to work with the layout you've got here, so just ignore me. :p
Those chunks of air-space are pretty big, too. I thought air-space was perma-banned on TL?
|
Ban vertical spawns or 1/4 of the games on this map will look identical to metalopolis (or metropolis, whichever one blizzard had in its map pool in 2010). Also there isn't a path to your opponents base that requires more than 2 FFs to block, i thought cloud kingdom would have this same issue but CK has many many many more attack paths than this.
Mega-boring XNT placement, does it even cover any ramp?
General layout of main/nat/3rd does appear to be rather defensible, which i like.
|
thanks for all teh comments. happy so many people want to help me make the map better. that's why it is called a beta. most problems can be tackled really, so do not hesitate to say what you think is wrong. all the other things are features 
On February 05 2013 06:26 Disengaged wrote:
Neat looking map
Cheers! Always nice when people start with something 100% positive!
On February 05 2013 06:33 lorestarcraft wrote:The only things I would change is to make this area more open + Show Spoiler +And ban vertical spawns.
To have all spawns enabled is an important part of the map. The different rush distances allow various forms of agression and a nice spectrum of strategies within one map. My plan was to have a no-fly zone between vertical spawns, if all games would be air-agression.
The small extra paths at 3/9 are integral part of the multi-path design and are needed considering the low cliff below thirds there as well as for multi pronged attack or harass.
On February 05 2013 07:11 SigmaFiE wrote:I disagree. It provides a nice little defensive posture area for the bases located just off the mains and vertical spawns in HotS should be perfectly fine. The only thing I might be worried about right now is the oracle but protoss has to delve so far into those economically and the way your resource line is set up, I think oracles and other early air harass would have diminished returns compared to other maps that may be ported over from WoL to HotS. Good set-up. Inspires me to try and 1-up you on the mirror design w/ close air! (But I probably won't -- at least not today) :D The one thing that might worry me on this map is early siege tank pushes and that is because of how much highground control they should be able to get. But than there is SOOOO much open space that you can flank them so it equals out I think.
i agree. regarding siegetanks please note the length of the highround ledge and how it spans from the main hugging thirds to the entrance from lowground. as you write there is plenty of space to out-maneuver turtling opponents.
On February 05 2013 07:24 Aerysta wrote:
Looks good! Makes me want to get back into map making.
I think the circle area may cause issues, but then again, if you are using that part of the map in a game, there are issues anyway - maps shouldn't have to be lowest common denominator; players should choose where they want to be, and where to defend/attack.
in the common meta-mapping-game it should be more about providing options. too many people focus on gimmicky stuff that in my humble opinion can script a map to an extent where it might not be fun anymore. while there should be all kind of maps for sure we need to allow very different things to happen. we are playground designers after all
On February 05 2013 07:41 Fatam wrote:
Use of space could probably be improved but aesthetics seem good and at least it's mirrored so it's not imbalanced right off the bat like 99% of rotationals.
where would you want me to be more effective with use of space. many people used to say i am very space efficent and since the only unused space is the sea area between vertical mains i am a bit surprised by your comment(?). (see image below)
On February 05 2013 08:02 lorestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 07:11 SigmaFiE wrote:On February 05 2013 06:33 lorestarcraft wrote:The only things I would change is to make this area more open + Show Spoiler +And ban vertical spawns. I disagree. It provides a nice little defensive posture area for the bases located just off the mains and vertical spawns in HotS should be perfectly fine. The only thing I might be worried about right now is the oracle but protoss has to delve so far into those economically and the way your resource line is set up, I think oracles and other early air harass would have diminished returns compared to other maps that may be ported over from WoL to HotS. Good set-up. Inspires me to try and 1-up you on the mirror design w/ close air! (But I probably won't -- at least not today) :D The one thing that might worry me on this map is early siege tank pushes and that is because of how much highground control they should be able to get. But than there is SOOOO much open space that you can flank them so it equals out I think. I was more worried about the XWT covering all viable army paths.
I was actually thinking about some small structure in the centre and no tower at all. in my experience that would ask a lot from the players. right now every ramp leaves some space non-covered from the tower (see image below).
On February 05 2013 08:41 NewSunshine wrote:How far exactly does the tower reach? I'm wondering if it reaches these paths: + Show Spoiler +I don't think it does, but I think it would be cool if they were covered. That way, if you want to sneak past in vertical spots, you have to take the rush path through that very narrow middle bit. Though, I'm not sure that can be made to work with the layout you've got here, so just ignore me. :p Those chunks of air-space are pretty big, too. I thought air-space was perma-banned on TL?
please refer to my answer regarding space-efficency. i thoughht it is okay.
god point on the tower. maybe this should be added (rock mechanic 2) as a feature on that side and for the sake of consistency in design. right now half of that ramp is uncovered. i could have made it so that the whole ramp is covered, but this would make the highround even bigger (although to an extent seen from the tower) - (for both issues please see images below).
On February 05 2013 11:56 Unsane wrote:
Ban vertical spawns or 1/4 of the games on this map will look identical to metalopolis (or metropolis, whichever one blizzard had in its map pool in 2010). Also there isn't a path to your opponents base that requires more than 2 FFs to block, i thought cloud kingdom would have this same issue but CK has many many many more attack paths than this.
Mega-boring XNT placement, does it even cover any ramp?
General layout of main/nat/3rd does appear to be rather defensible, which i like.
the problems you point out can all be tackled without bigger changes in the geometry of the map. except the vertocal spawns. to decide on some sort of no-fly zone i need to see more games. iirc air distance is bigger and nowadays you see more air defense regularly, don't you.
ramp width are all good in my opinion and the map should not feel more restrictive than CK. XWT factor might be strengthened (see rock mechanic 2 coomment above) or taken out. undecided yet.
- - -
ON ROCK MECHANIC 2
6x6 rocks that force players to walk into the area of the XWT or take outside paths.
- - -
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SNuIXmC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1516S5p.jpg)
|
If that is the XWT sight range then its fine, size wise. But the placement :S, only in cross spawns will it be used at all. If you went with even a star station-esque layout for the XWTs then they would be significant. Ive won games on that map because the opponent did not make sure i didn't have the XWT when he attacked and allowed me full view of everything he was bringing to the fight. And he should be punished for something so idiotic. Ive also lost games because i had the XWT and the opponent went around and surprised me, good on him. The placement isnt even very interesting but they are still useful.
If the blue line is the edge where units cannot go then the air space is significantly smaller than what i expected from the overview pic.
|
On February 05 2013 17:38 Unsane wrote:
If that is the XWT sight range then its fine, size wise. But the placement :S, only in cross spawns will it be used at all. If you went with even a star station-esque layout for the XWTs then they would be significant. Ive won games on that map because the opponent did not make sure i didn't have the XWT when he attacked and allowed me full view of everything he was bringing to the fight. And he should be punished for something so idiotic. Ive also lost games because i had the XWT and the opponent went around and surprised me, good on him. The placement isnt even very interesting but they are still useful.
If the blue line is the edge where units cannot go then the air space is significantly smaller than what i expected from the overview pic.
I disagree on the potential of a better placement. Any shifting in the position to the left/right or top/down (adding a second tower) would grant much to much vision.
either centre + consistent use of rock mechanic 2 or no tower at all.
sure the circle defines vision, why so you think i produce such an image :D
|
please refer to my answer regarding space-efficency. i thoughht it is okay.
It was a joke, though it's ruined now that I have to explain it. I agree that it's fine.
|
I wasn't against the 3 and 9 o'clock path, I just thought they should be flat instead of congested ramps so there is a more dangerous, but not tedious path around the middle. (Where the tower WILL see everything, half a ramp won't allow many units through.)
|
On February 06 2013 03:19 NewSunshine wrote:It was a joke, though it's ruined now that I have to explain it. I agree that it's fine.
oh, i almost got it i think. sorry had to kill it. that is too much a serious topic here at TL!. you do not just fool around with space efficiency.
On February 06 2013 03:37 lorestarcraft wrote:
I wasn't against the 3 and 9 o'clock path, I just thought they should be flat instead of congested ramps so there is a more dangerous, but not tedious path around the middle. (Where the tower WILL see everything, half a ramp won't allow many units through.)
ah, i see. you are not wrong on the tower, yet I disagree with you on the ramp into third. Both thirds should be equally attackable and i think i serve this best when there is a clear defender's advantage. Additionally the lowground is needed for the whole low cliff and LOSB area there.
|
Recently had the chance to make up my mind about several minor issues.
Changes
- backside ramps at equatorial thirds enlarged + 2gold patches worth 96
- high ground path between each of the two polar thirds enlarged + rocks 6x6
- no more XWT (reasoning below)
- small unwalkable high ground structure added to centre( reasoning below)
+ Show Spoiler [reasoning for XWT to high ground] +
a central area can be choked or open, complex or simple. on a 4player map there is not that much space to do something very complex and also it is not needed. what is needed is an object of interest or rather an objective that want players to be offensively dominant enough to engange and take control of the central area. it just makes things so much more interesting too spectate really.
when discussing the XWT one always had the argument about the tower seeing too much space and too many important path. so you either have large enough paths all the way around too compensate for it or you design something that makes the plain centre more interesting, e.g. the concept of dynamic through rocks (testbug and more recently atlas).
there is a tower so you want to have it or you do not want the opponent to have it; there are rocks, you need to have them destroyed or not taken down respecticly. All that creates dynamic. Theoretically the tower i had in the centre creates that you, yet most people think a central tower is boring. yet imho the problem is neither the singular nor the central tower. the problem is when the tower emphasizes a stasis that is already present. on my map the level 2 terrain creates a 'natural' distinction between areas you cover as a defender and areas you want to cross to attack - and of course you want to scout at to know what is going on or coming your direction - and the central tower on my map made that separation even stronger and basically only one player could control the centre. either you or the opponent.
so logically one takes away the tower. but that creates a big plain area that cannot be controlled by one player.
what i did is something i have seen much more on sc:bw maps than on the sc:wol maps i know - this is something madsquare or dezi told me to look for - i split the area in smaller chunks of space which again creates attraction: i want to control one quarter of the centre, i need to know what is going on three quarters of the centre, I need to scout my opponent to know if units entered the fourth quarter and so on.
(pictures to be added asap, but i guess the changes are simple enough to be unterstood by text information)
|
obviously cannot provide the upload for the (ex-)beta, but here is the image of the changes explained above.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ooJBpzk.jpg)
|
Do you still have the beta editor working samro?? for me when the beta ended i couldn`t load the beta HotS dependencies anymore 
|
On March 06 2013 10:55 Uvantak wrote:Do you still have the beta editor working samro?? for me when the beta ended i couldn`t load the beta HotS dependencies anymore
It works for me and others as well, however there's some it doesn't work for anymore.
edit Bright side: One week to go! 
|
As far as I can tell if you didn't change your region on your account (by logging into WOL, for instance) then the editor will work. If you did tho, you're SOL until release. *even closing the editor may screw you though, I'm not certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Q4BYmj.jpg)
