|
Available now on US/EU. Search for "Lost Arcanum".
Version: 1.0 Players: 2 Size (Playable): 172x168 Spawn Positions: 10 & 4
Changelog: + Show Spoiler + Map Image: (Click for High-Res)
Map Info: + Show Spoiler +This map is my second collaboration with gundream; who provided a basic layout sketch which was then slightly tweaked, more subtle changes were then made during creation. Here are the initial sketches; + Show Spoiler +The most significant changes were slightly relocating the natural, adjusting the natural choke point and adding a second ramp to the 4th/5th high ground expansion. The shape/size of the main base was also changed slightly. Players spawn at the 10 and 4 positions on a sizeable high-ground base and can then expand away from their opponents to their natural. The natural expansion is tucked away and very close to the ramp, but there is still a path behind the mineral line for harassment and turret placement. Destructible rocks (scrap metal) block a wide ramp entrance from the natural to the third base/second expansion. A second wide ramp then leads from the third base to the 4th and 5th expansions. One of which is farther from your opponent but on low-ground and more open, whereas the other is on high-ground and harder to attack but is at a closer proximity to your opponent. In the centre of the map is a large piece of high-ground which houses the two high-yield expansions. There are 4 ramps, two in the middle and one each at the north-east and south-west. There are 4 watchtowers on Lost Arcanum which provide significant vision around the middle of the map. Two of the towers allow spotting of the gold expansions, and the other two are more out of the way but provide useful sight of potential flanks. All of the watchtowers are surrounded by LOS blockers for sneaky tactics. I tried to keep the following at the forefront of my mind while making this map; + Show Spoiler +Zerg benefit from the sheer size, allowing lots of flanking and expanding opportunities - as well as large areas of open ground. The design of the natural expansion and it's distance from the main should also benefit them.
The multiple entrances to most areas of high-ground, the relative width of the flank routes and the watchtowers should result in siege tanks not being OP (but still very useful). Reapers have multiple access points to the main and natural but again the distance between the two should make it possible to defend against them.
Protoss should be able to fast expand if they desire, and can also harass their opponent with numerous possible locations for proxy pylons. Most of their unit compositions and tactics should be viable.
There's room around a lot of the outside of the map for air units to move, to encourage drops and air harass.
Pictures: (Click for High-Res) + Show Spoiler + Map Analyser Info: + Show Spoiler +
Lost Arcanum is now available to playtest on both US and EU regions. Search for "Lost Arcanum" to find it. Any feedback or criticism is highly appreciated and thank you for your time.
You can find my other maps in my mapthread here.
|
Wtf a 172x168 2 player map oO That's just way too big. The concept seems pretty good, I think it doesn't need 2 expos at top right/bottom left though. And yeah, shrink the map down and possibly make it long (e.g. 128x96). With that change it would also be enough to have only 2 watch towers. Some more textures could be added too^^
|
|
Seems pretty big, but it looks like its going to help Zerg a lot, which is why you made it so open my guess is... Great for flanks actually.
So its not a bad map probably make it smaller and it might be a bit better but otherwise is a good map.
|
On August 28 2010 07:22 WarChimp wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Seems pretty big, but it looks like its going to help Zerg a lot, which is why you made it so open my guess is... Great for flanks actually. So its not a bad map probably make it smaller and it might be a bit better but otherwise is a good map.
On August 28 2010 05:40 FlopTurnReaver wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Wtf a 172x168 2 player map oO That's just way too big. The concept seems pretty good, I think it doesn't need 2 expos at top right/bottom left though. And yeah, shrink the map down and possibly make it long (e.g. 128x96). With that change it would also be enough to have only 2 watch towers. Some more textures could be added too^^ A lot of people have been saying the maps in the current ladder pool are far too small, and I'm inclined to agree. This map is designed to solve as many of the issues associated with the current ladder maps as possible. Also, I think it would be a better idea to play some games on the map first before dismissing it outright as being far too large =)
In my opinion, when playing it doesn't really feel that huge. For example, diagonally between the two main bases (where the majority of the action will be going down) you have one large, quite open area, the middle high ground which isn't really that big or obtrusive, and then the large open area on the opposite side. At the very least, like I said I'd love for people to give it a try and see what they think.
The size of the map balances out with the number of expansions too, which hopefully means longer, macro games. Some of the best games I've seen are when players spawn cross positions on Metalopolis, and I guess in some respects the layout and size of this map are quite similar.
The zoomed-out pictures don't really do the textures justice either, and make the map look sort of two-tone. The in-game view pictures (which is all a player is ever really going to see) show that there is enough detail wherever you're looking on the map for it to be interesting without being distracting.
|
Your right I should play it, but alas im in SEA and it wont be published here and I wanna try it vs people, against AI it sucks...
|
I probably wouldn't have said anything if it was a 2 player map because I heard all the complaints about the too small maps too. And it's not about the free space or the many expansions, but think about it this way: You're trying to contain a Terran opponent who is turteling with bunkers and sieged tanks. Suddenly you see 1 medivac full of marauder/marines. It's not a lot but they will kill your whole base before you're back.
|
Brilliant map. The thirds are very interesting in shape and positioning, the debris is well placed as well. Thanks! Wish it was on the ladder..
|
On August 28 2010 09:17 FlopTurnReaver wrote: I probably wouldn't have said anything if it was a 2 player map because I heard all the complaints about the too small maps too. And it's not about the free space or the many expansions, but think about it this way: You're trying to contain a Terran opponent who is turteling with bunkers and sieged tanks. Suddenly you see 1 medivac full of marauder/marines. It's not a lot but they will kill your whole base before you're back.
You can't stop 2 marauders and 4 marines with the production at your base? You're doing it wrong.
|
Not to mention that dropships themselves, if travelling around the outside perimeter of the map, will have further to travel because of the map size and therefore take longer to get to your base.
Chances are, if you're containing a turtling player then most of your forces will be position in the area between his main and the gold expansions, and the distance from this area back to your main is quite direct and really isn't that significant.
On August 28 2010 09:07 WarChimp wrote:Your right I should play it, but alas im in SEA and it wont be published here and I wanna try it vs people, against AI it sucks...
If you or someone you know in SEA would be interested in publishing the maps on their account, then send me a PM and it shouldn't be hard to arrange.
|
imo 3rd base rocks should go to the opponent to take down, so put them on it's other ramp. I really like this map, looks very nice an balance except the gold middle bases don't look usable for zerg. Maybe if you rotated the entire middle (including those ramp islands) 90° you could make them a bit wider and safer without making the rest of the map too narrow.
|
On August 28 2010 11:44 funcmode wrote:Not to mention that dropships themselves, if travelling around the outside perimeter of the map, will have further to travel because of the map size and therefore take longer to get to your base. Chances are, if you're containing a turtling player then most of your forces will be position in the area between his main and the gold expansions, and the distance from this area back to your main is quite direct and really isn't that significant. Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 09:07 WarChimp wrote:Your right I should play it, but alas im in SEA and it wont be published here and I wanna try it vs people, against AI it sucks... If you or someone you know in SEA would be interested in publishing the maps on their account, then send me a PM and it shouldn't be hard to arrange. why doesn't he do it himself? post a mediafire link for him to DL
|
I really like the map conceptually, and it's very nicely terrained and put together. Very different from a lot of other maps out there, it's quite awesome.
It seems slightly big, but I like it. My only small complaint is that I really don't like the shape of the high yield expo terrain. Something just doesn't look right about the mins/gas there.
|
Just played a game on it to test it out. I do like it a lot. My only thought, and I know it may be impossible with the way you have it flowing now, is that to maybe the ramp at your main, and thus the natural, should be opening towards the center to minimize the distance on this map.
I do love how open it is and how large it is, but just having it flow more towards the center might work. It's almost too easy to protect your natural at the moment, I think.
|
Thanks to everyone that have put their two cents into the map...I know we both try to think of the map in the same perspective...Hes on EU and I'm on US so it makes it hard to plan these out...I havent had a chance to play it just yet but if anyone would like to try it out just add me on friends (gundream.330) I think that it came out looking just how I imagined it...so he really put his effort into seeing it through my sketch...We'll see about the size...please more input from those who have played it!
|
lol this map makes me feel like im in the campaign, GJ!
|
On August 28 2010 11:50 CharlieMurphy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +imo 3rd base rocks should go to the opponent to take down, so put them on it's other ramp. I really like this map, looks very nice an balance except the gold middle bases don't look usable for zerg. Maybe if you rotated the entire middle (including those ramp islands) 90° you could make them a bit wider and safer without making the rest of the map too narrow. Regarding the destructible rocks, the current location allows them to serve two purposes. First, allowing a player to attack an opponents natural, especially if they blocked off the main choke. And secondly, to slightly delay taking a 3rd base. I think if the rocks were moved to the other ramp, then the 3rd base would be too safe.
As for the middle ground, I'd like to hear some more opinions regarding the high-yield expansions before I make any drastic changes, but it's something to consider =)
On August 28 2010 12:02 Mikilatov wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I really like the map conceptually, and it's very nicely terrained and put together. Very different from a lot of other maps out there, it's quite awesome.
It seems slightly big, but I like it. My only small complaint is that I really don't like the shape of the high yield expo terrain. Something just doesn't look right about the mins/gas there. Thanks, I will agree that the layout of the centre is definitely abnormal, but I didn't want the minerals and gas to be too exposed especially with the nearby watchtowers, and I also wanted them to be quite "tight" so you can't fit loads of units up there to defend. But I'll experiment with them and see if I can improve it at all.
On August 28 2010 13:49 This is Aru wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Just played a game on it to test it out. I do like it a lot. My only thought, and I know it may be impossible with the way you have it flowing now, is that to maybe the ramp at your main, and thus the natural, should be opening towards the center to minimize the distance on this map.
I do love how open it is and how large it is, but just having it flow more towards the center might work. It's almost too easy to protect your natural at the moment, I think. I'm glad you like it. As for the natural, I wanted it to be very safe as far as naturals go. I would argue though that it's definitely not a "free" expansion. It has a backdoor entrance, the main choke isn't huge but is still significant and the mineral line can be harassed by air and fast ground units. Perhaps now that patch 1.1 is around the corner, this is something that could potentially be changed in the future and I'll definitely give it some thought.
Thanks for your input from everyone so far though, please keep it coming =)
|
On August 28 2010 05:40 FlopTurnReaver wrote: Wtf a 172x168 2 player map oO That's just way too big. The concept seems pretty good, I think it doesn't need 2 expos at top right/bottom left though. And yeah, shrink the map down and possibly make it long (e.g. 128x96). With that change it would also be enough to have only 2 watch towers. Some more textures could be added too^^ nonononono
we need some big 1v1 macro maps out there!
|
Awesome design! love the artwork and the managing of the big open spaces. I'm currently working on a big 1v1 map on my own and I had some trouble making open spaces "more interesting" without destroying the open feeling of the map.
Def. gonna try your map out with a couple of friends.
|
awesome to hear people are getting into the map!
|
|
|
|