|
Published on NA / EU
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WehU9Fpl.jpg)
Clicken Sie hier für Ästhetikbilder
126x126, all Castanar except Braxis Alpha manmade cliffs, 1211 doodats, 7 expansions per player, 3 of which have reduced resource count, 2 islands.
Natural
I really like Icarus bases as naturals and in general and I feel they should be encorporated more. What it does is it gives you a roughly 7 patch income of minerals while needing only 6 patches worth of workers to saturate. Which essentially gives you the possiblity to be very aggressive of 2 bases because you need to invest less in workers while not providing you with a full 16 patch + 4 gas aggression. It also makes holding 1 base all ins quite possible because you can stop producing workers earlier to do so and still have a nice income for it.
The natural also features 2 rather wide entrances. I'm not going to make a 9 hex width natural which in my belief essentially ruins every matchup in the game just to accomodate FFE better, you can still FFE with a nexus wall or you could just not FFE if you don't like nexus walls. FFE in my opinion is a cancer to this game and I'd rather see it gone than anything.
Forward half golds
There are forward bases of 4golds and 1 rich gas. This gives you essentially a 5.6 patch economy but you only need 4 patches worth of workers to saturate it, it's actually worth far less than a normal base but requires very little workers to saturate, be mindful that 8 workers cost as much as a CC so the amount of workers you need to pay for to saturate a base do matter. The forward gold can be taken as a staging point for aggression requiring very little works to pay off.
Attached island bases
THere are two attached islands, both Island bases can be harassed from the high ground and in an interesting twist also allow harassing the base that lies on the high ground from the lowground. Unlike most Island bases nowadays they aren't blocked by rocks whatsoever because they can be harassed so easily.
wildly varying expansion progression
I see a total of 6 bases of the 14 of the map which realistically can be taken by either player depending on how the game unfolds. This includes the Islands and the forward golds. If you take the clockwise third and then the 2/3 base after that you can likely end up with the forward gold which prima facie seems to belong to your opponent.
Random floating cubes everywhere
I dunno what this map is even supposed to look like, it seems like some sort of Terran installation in a thunderstorm with random floating cubes flying around.
|
I like it.
I'd make the natural easier to defend. I know you have a fetish for this style, and I think it's cool, but I can't see it being taken easily. It'll just make 1-base all-ins really popular or end up being imbalanced. I think one entrance would suite it better. Icarus was essentially free so.... the only similarity is the mineral/gas count. As zerg on this map, I might take the highground third as my natural.
Rush distances look like a pain in the ass and I don't like split paths. I think it would be much better if you make it simpler or figure out how to have it be one path (without changing the middle much). Also the aesthetics make it hard for me to even see what's going on.
Corners are cool but really clustered with expansions. I'd rather just have 3 instead of 4 (bringing total count to 12 instead of 14). I never like expo oversaturation because I think it takes away from map control, army positioning, counterattacks, drop harass, etc. Not sure exactly how you should do this. One way would be to remove the highground expo and just have the island behind it be the designation fourth for Z.
Most of the map seems to be very choked. I don't think there's enough space for Z to comfortably surround, and for T to get a good spread against coll/storm. Maybe there is though. Again, aesthetics make it hard for me to tell the sizes of areas. The path next to the third seems mostly useless. I don't quite understand why you put it there except for weird engagement scenarios. Also is that cliff droppable?
On the aesthetics... they seem ridiculously crazy and unfluid. I had to look for a while to tell what was going on. In-game I'd guess it hurts players eyes. Practicing 14 hours a day on a map this bright and confusing would be painful. It's why ice tilesets were never used in brood war. I think you should seriously consider redoing or just simplying the aesthetics (maybe try a look like some of the Crux guys are doing on the space maps?).
|
Honestly, on the aesthetics part, I get this a lot, it never really bothers me all that much but a lot of people say that when they look at the overlay of my maps they feel they don't really 'get it' at first and have to look multiple times. I don't know, I might use a standard tileset like Phaeton or something one day to stop it from turning into stuff like that. I've noticed that. Maybe it's to do with the fact that I got a sensory disorder
I don't think there's enough space for Z to properly surround either. I'm basically massively banking on swarmhosts, the expansion layout also makes swarmhosts a good choice. I tried to make the layout more open multiple times and succeeded some-what but at this point I can't go a lot further without having to remove pathways. The other thing is Crossfire, people at first assumed that it would be very bad for Z because of the chokes but there were so many counter attack paths that it nullified it, this map also has quite a lot.
|
The name doesn't seem Siskos but even as i saw the map's picture in my peripheral vision i knew whose it was....
Don't change the aesthetics. I like trippy. Trippy is good.
Brilliant ideas for the corners. They are essentially air bases, yet still harass-able by ground forces and not drop-deniable thanks to the cliff area and low ground.
While I feel having a map designed to kill naturals is a step backwards meta-wise. I think im ok with the idea of a natural susceptible to aggression because at the moment it feels like most builds capable of killing a natural also aren't capable of claiming their natural.
And i like the idea of playing with the economies through changing the ratios of worker counts to saturation to potential income.
|
On March 14 2013 13:12 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Honestly, on the aesthetics part, I get this a lot, it never really bothers me all that much but a lot of people say that when they look at the overlay of my maps they feel they don't really 'get it' at first and have to look multiple times. I don't know, I might use a standard tileset like Phaeton or something one day to stop it from turning into stuff like that. I've noticed that. Maybe it's to do with the fact that I got a sensory disorder
On the aesthetics, I think your tilesets are fine -- its your use of doodads that is affecting how players feel about it. Try to keep in mind while doing these what impact it gives to the player. Do the ground decals direct a players attention towards useful information (i.e. resource lines, other paths, etc. . .) and do they interfere with themselves. For example, on this map I have trouble reading the overview because you not only use rectangular decal systems to point out ramps, but you also use them on normal flatground in areas where it does not lend a positive impact, but can hinder the impact of what I think you meant as their primary use (pointing out the ramps). Also, keep in mind that system settings will change which doodads show up and which don't. You can use that as a somehwat of a benchmark to get rid of unnecessary doodads if it feels too crowded. Of course, artistic license applies.
I won't speak to the layout just yet as I do not have time at the moment -- but I am definitely intrigued by your resource lines from your explanation.
Why are we calling the natural an "Icarus" base? Difference I see is the resource line but other than that just looks like a normal open natural...
|
Doodats completely disappear on low graphics which every pro plays on I feel., I tend to make my maps to be clear on low settings but pretty on high settings because that's why people pick them, people play on low for clarity and on high for eye candy.
It's called an Icarus-base because Icarus was the first map by my knowledge to use the 4m2hm1hg expansion. It was not the first map to use the what could be called 'jungle basin base', however.
|
I like this map in general and feel its well worthy of some public testing.
I understand how you feel about maps designed to accommodate ffes, but I think your approach is too radical for others to accept immediately (for 'serious' play that is). Fact is, ffe is a standard and accepted part of the meta-game that players expect to be able to employ on any map, and we all know about failing to meet clients' expectations. This type of natural might cause the map to be 'rejected' outright. My suggestion is to 'wean' players away from this 'dependancy' by making the natural have 3 channels into it instead of 2. This would yield wall-off options, none of which results in an immediate and complete wall-off. Then the natural wouldn't feel so naked, making protoss and terran feel much more comfortable vs. zerg. As it stands, I don't think players would feel this map balanced.
|
The purpose of new maps is to change the metagame, if new maps just repeat the old metagame there is no use for new maps. The very purpose of making a map is to force the game into a direction you want it to take. That is why people went away from Blizzard maps. 2rax was the norm back then, people didn't like it so they made maps which made 2rax weaker.
Apart from that, even if I had nothing against FFE. I won't sacrifice 5 matchups to accomodate one when there is no balance problem at play here. Most protoss players agree nowadays that gateway expands are fine as well and you still sometimes see them. I'd sacrifice 5 matchups for FFE if FFE was a requirement for balance but it isn't. Especially in HotS Gateway expands are seeing a strong return because they give you an earlier mothership core.
|
On March 15 2013 00:22 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Apart from that, even if I had nothing against FFE. I won't sacrifice 5 matchups to accomodate one when there is no balance problem at play here. Most protoss players agree nowadays that gateway expands are fine as well and you still sometimes see them. I'd sacrifice 5 matchups for FFE if FFE was a requirement for balance but it isn't. Especially in HotS Gateway expands are seeing a strong return because they give you an earlier mothership core.
I don't want to sound like a nitpick, but that is an unsupportable assertion. The best we can say is that it's worth trying un-FFE-able naturals again.
I don't really think this map is quite set up to use the icarus base correctly, but worth a try I guess. The middle is kind of cool, the rest is kind of circle syndrome, overall one of your better variations on a theme. This has a better balance between the split paths, long lines separating routes, and base and center connectedness.
Your aesthetics make it hard to read the overview picture, every time. XD
|
On March 14 2013 23:19 SiskosGoatee wrote:
It's called an Icarus-base because Icarus was the first map by my knowledge to use the 4m2hm1hg expansion.
It isn't the first, it's just the most successful thus far. It was made into a mapping meme ages ago.
+ Show Spoiler +
I hardly understand the obsession you have with them, to be honest. Openness/difficulty aside, it doesn't change much at all. Though there is a definite difference, it's hardly one I'd call appreciable. And as for Icarus' natural expansion, I'd say its true defining characteristic is the way it's tucked inside the main, the path into it sealed by rocks. This is practically the opposite. The mixture of patch types isn't as significant as the way the base is situated.
|
On March 15 2013 13:59 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:19 SiskosGoatee wrote:
It's called an Icarus-base because Icarus was the first map by my knowledge to use the 4m2hm1hg expansion. It isn't the first, it's just the most successful thus far. It was made into a mapping meme ages ago. + Show Spoiler +I hardly understand the obsession you have with them, to be honest. I used a mix before, but this specific mix is what I call an icarus base because I never saw this specific mix before and it seems to work out very well in practice, a 6 patch base which gives you a 7 patch income seems to be the ideal ratio for a natural that allows you into a quick third without 3 base turtling honestly.
Openness/difficulty aside, it doesn't change much at all. Though there is a definite difference, it's hardly one I'd call appreciable. And as for Icarus' natural expansion, I'd say its true defining characteristic is the way it's tucked inside the main, the path into it sealed by rocks. This is practically the opposite. The mixture of patch types isn't as significant as the way the base is situated. Surely that you need a whopping 9 less workers to fully saturate this base opposed to a normal base changes quite a bit?
You see very specific builds on icarus which only happen on icarus, this isn't because of the natural being tucked away, that doesn't explain how the income people get lines up for MMM a lot versus Zerg, the base just provides a good income for it.
|
Map's ok.
I know that you put a lot of effort into your maps (it seems so) but maybe you should go for new things; aesthetically and in terms of layout.
I don't even remember half your layouts, because they're all so similar, and aesthetically too (Braxis alpha cliff, weird lighting, etc)
Also aesthetics could be more cohesive, and you should stick to standard lighting. Lighting really doesn't make a map any better.
|
was this a response to my comment?
The purpose of new maps is to change the metagame, if new maps just repeat the old metagame there is no use for new maps. The very purpose of making a map is to force the game into a direction you want it to take. That is why people went away from Blizzard maps. 2rax was the norm back then, people didn't like it so they made maps which made 2rax weaker.
Apart from that, even if I had nothing against FFE. I won't sacrifice 5 matchups to accomodate one when there is no balance problem at play here. Most protoss players agree nowadays that gateway expands are fine as well and you still sometimes see them. I'd sacrifice 5 matchups for FFE if FFE was a requirement for balance but it isn't. Especially in HotS Gateway expands are seeing a strong return because they give you an earlier mothership core.
please re-read my comment. all i was suggesting was to soften your approach to avoid being marginalized. in many cases perception IS fact, like it or not.
i liked the idea. didn't i say so? so much for constructive criticism. OR you might think of it this way: i've posted a fairly developed map idea on the new map in progress thread, with pictures, dimensions, timings and descriptions, etc. and NO ONE even saw fit to leave a single comment or suggestion. show some gratitude my friend. no one is required to say 'boo' to you.
|
On March 15 2013 22:50 Semmo wrote:
Map's ok.
I know that you put a lot of effort into your maps (it seems so) but maybe you should go for new things; aesthetically and in terms of layout.
I don't even remember half your layouts, because they're all so similar, and aesthetically too (Braxis alpha cliff, weird lighting, etc) While I agree my layouts feature some common themes. They're still more disimilar than most maps are to each other honestly. I do like to create more open naturals but almost every other map creates them more closed up. I also readily experiment with inbase expos and backdoor rocks. On braxis alpha cliffs I don't agree. But it's pretty much the only terran cliff I use because I don't like the other ones.
http://imgur.com/a/jUA0u
http://imgur.com/a/lmwk4
http://imgur.com/a/Cc43w
http://imgur.com/a/m36O5
THese are the last maps I made, I wouldn't say they are aesthetically similar at all. It goes from lava map to snow installation to Shakuras-style map to jungle map.
Also aesthetics could be more cohesive, and you should stick to standard lighting. Lighting really doesn't make a map any better. It's prettier as far as I am concerned, it's clear enough on low settings, I am for aesthetics on high and clarity on low.
On March 15 2013 23:45 hokeypocus wrote:was this a response to my comment? Show nested quote +The purpose of new maps is to change the metagame, if new maps just repeat the old metagame there is no use for new maps. The very purpose of making a map is to force the game into a direction you want it to take. That is why people went away from Blizzard maps. 2rax was the norm back then, people didn't like it so they made maps which made 2rax weaker.
Apart from that, even if I had nothing against FFE. I won't sacrifice 5 matchups to accomodate one when there is no balance problem at play here. Most protoss players agree nowadays that gateway expands are fine as well and you still sometimes see them. I'd sacrifice 5 matchups for FFE if FFE was a requirement for balance but it isn't. Especially in HotS Gateway expands are seeing a strong return because they give you an earlier mothership core. please re-read my comment. all i was suggesting was to soften your approach to avoid being marginalized. in many cases perception IS fact, like it or not. i liked the idea. didn't i say so? so much for constructive criticism. OR you might think of it this way: i've posted a fairly developed map idea on the new map in progress thread, with pictures, dimensions, timings and descriptions, etc. and NO ONE even saw fit to leave a single comment or suggestion. show some gratitude my friend. no one is required to say 'boo' to you. I'm not implying disrepect or from your part, I'm just saying that I don't make maps to support FFE because I don't like the strat, that's all. (or passive games in general). I didn't mean to be rude and am sorry if it was construed as such.
|
On March 15 2013 22:43 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Surely that you need a whopping 9 less workers to fully saturate this base opposed to a normal base changes quite a bit?
The much more common configuration of 6m1hyg does this same thing. Something that configuration also does is keep the maths simple, since it provides exactly 75% of the income of a regular 8m2g base. Once you start mixing patches, stuff gets very hard to keep track of, not to speak of established timings which will be altered or thrown off ever so slightly. Blizzard keeps with only 8m2g/6hym2g for a reason, it's to keep the maths of economy-per-base simple enough for an e-sport setting. The rationale for it is perfectly reasonable. Also, having a 6m1hyg as a third does the same thing (prevent traditional 3-base turtling), without throwing off timings involved with 2 bases, or taking the 3rd to begin with. This has also been done before.
And the 2 gold patches on Icarus really don't change all that much. The main reason you'll see new builds for a map like that is because of how almost every known convention was thrown out the window with regard to the main and natural, and third, and basically the whole map... not because you get an extra patch's worth of income.
|
On March 16 2013 01:11 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 22:43 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Surely that you need a whopping 9 less workers to fully saturate this base opposed to a normal base changes quite a bit?
The much more common configuration of 6m1hyg does this same thing. Something that configuration also does is keep the maths simple, since it provides exactly 75% of the income of a regular 8m2g base. Once you start mixing patches, stuff gets very hard to keep track of, not to speak of established timings which will be altered or thrown off ever so slightly. Blizzard keeps with only 8m2g/6hym2g for a reason, it's to keep the maths of economy-per-base simple enough for an e-sport setting. The rationale for it is perfectly reasonable. Also, having a 6m1hyg as a third does the same thing (prevent traditional 3-base turtling), without throwing off timings involved with 2 bases, or taking the 3rd to begin with. This has also been done before. Yeah, but that's the point, a 6m1hg base is simply worse than a 8m2g base. The point of the two-three gold patches (thinking of changing to 3 after some testing) is to generate a bigger mineral income than you would normally have on that worker investment.
And the 2 gold patches on Icarus really don't change all that much. The main reason you'll see new builds for a map like that is because of how almost every known convention was thrown out the window with regard to the main and natural, and third, and basically the whole map... not because you get an extra patch's worth of income. Absolutely not true. The builds are fit for the map, the bio build MKP uses for that map won't work on any other map because the income doesn't line up properly any more. Some numbers to show the significance:
- 8 fully saturated patches give you 860 minerals per minute
- 6 give you 645
- 4+2 rich mineral fields give you 730
- 7 mineral patches give you 750
Those are all pretty significant numbers. Making 2 patches gold is almost the same as just adding an extra patch and doesn't cost you 3 extra workers
|
Hey man, just btw, I know you don't respond well to criticism, but I think you should try to keep an open mind when posting maps here. It's a natural instinct to argue against everyone's concerns, but I promise that there are some good pieces of feedback. Of course, there are lots of bad suggestions throughout the custom map forum. But it's important to recognize the legitimacy of people trying to improve your map. I'm not saying make every change someone suggests, just consider it.
|
I disagree, I argue with all the things. It's the purpose of a forum.
|
I can see the forum lasting a long time!
|
True that, if anything, you can't deny I do stir up some debates.
Let me ask you this though, with all your talk of objectivity and stuff, how would you rate me as a mapmaker on the fields of:
- aesthetics
- originality
- consistent concept (I still don't know what this means but we'll throw it in)
- balance
- layout
- overall
Shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yHi15.jpg)
