| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 02:31. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
Blistering Sands RE v1.2Made by: Gfire Published on: [AM]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sL991.jpg)
This map is, quite obviously, a remake of  Blistering Sands. It's something I've been meaning to do for a while. The distances are much larger than the original, to the point of being far too long before the rocks are taken down and hopefully playable afterwards. The natural is a bit easier to defend with a ramp now, and the walk distance from the natural to the backdoor rocks on the outside of the base is hopefully long enough that we don't get some of the issues the original map had.
In addition to that, there are 4 more bases. No gold currently but I might add them back in because of the last patch. Let me know what you think about that.
Pictures (Gameplay):
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer] +
+ Show Spoiler [Angled Overview] +
Data (Gameplay):
- Playable Bounds: 152x120
- Main Choke <-> Main Choke Distance(s): 62
- Nat Choke <-> Nat Choke Distance(s): 52
- Backdoor Choke <-> Backdoor Choke Distance(s): 30
Change Log:
+ Show Spoiler +v1.2 - Release.
v1.3 - Changed the main and natural ramps to it's more clear how to wall in. (Not updated in the images) Last edit: 2012-03-07 12:20:15 |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| NewSunshine United States. March 06 2012 03:34. Posts 1017 | Profile # |
I like it, it looks cool. I'm unsure if the backdoor is still a problem though. With both backdoors open, the distance is stupidly short, but just opening 1 doesn't shorten things by much. Still, with all the rocks facilitating access of the main, there might be potential PvP issues. I could be wrong, I haven't seen enough games on, say, crevasse, to say one way or another.
I hope the design can get fully fleshed out though, then we could have 1 BS that works.  |
| | [ESV mapmaking team member] [Former DF map team founder] [@ESVNewSunshine] |
|
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 03:55. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
I'm pretty sure the rocks have too much HP to affect the 4gate issue. I've never noticed it being an issue in tournament games, at least.
The rush distance backdoor-to-backdoor is about 30 seconds, similar to the main-to-main on close air Shattered or Metal. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| Laids United Kingdom. March 06 2012 03:56. Posts 592 | Profile # |
| That looks like a pretty good macro practice map for bronze-silver players tbh. The expansions are obviously nice for Zerg, but I think every Protoss would just double pylon block the bottom of the ramp at the nat against Zerg. Last edit: 2012-03-06 03:56:14 |
|
|
| Zeon0 Austria. March 06 2012 04:04. Posts 2542 | Profile # |
why dont just remove the backdoor? if you open up the ramp from natural to 3rd its a decent map with blistering sands flair^^
i always liked the map, despite being zerg and dying to uncounted 4gates back then. (i also liked desert oasis :D) |
| | Hater of MKP since GSL Open Season 2 | Fanboy of: NesTea Stephano IdrA DIMAGA MorroW ret DongRaeGu Snute SaSe Mvp ThorZaIN DeMusliM |
|
|
 Aunvilgod March 06 2012 04:08. Posts 2031 | Profile # |
| aka the non-zergs nightmare |
| |
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 04:13. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
On March 06 2012 03:56 Laids wrote:
That looks like a pretty good macro practice map for bronze-silver players tbh. The expansions are obviously nice for Zerg, but I think every Protoss would just double pylon block the bottom of the ramp at the nat against Zerg.
You mean the ramp from the main to natural? It takes 3 pylons just like a regular ramp. A supply depot could be added if it's a big problem. I never put depots on my maps, but not for any specific reason.
On March 06 2012 04:04 Zeon0 wrote:
why dont just remove the backdoor? if you open up the ramp from natural to 3rd its a decent map with blistering sands flair^^
i always liked the map, despite being zerg and dying to uncounted 4gates back then. (i also liked desert oasis :D)
That would of course destroy the entire identity of the map, and I wouldn't have made a remake other than to make a workable backdoor.
The rush distance would be too long without a backdoor, as well.
On March 06 2012 04:08 Aunvilgod wrote:
aka the non-zergs nightmare
You mean without a backdoor?Last edit: 2012-03-06 04:13:45 |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| DYEAlabaster Canada. March 06 2012 04:33. Posts 992 | Profile Blog # |
Backdoors are generally accepted to not be a viable concept in competative games. While you have fixed the issue of the exploit in Blistering sands (that the attacking arc was shorter than the defending arc), it is still not a concept that you want to put in a map. This is because you don't have any "guaranteed bases", which is what you want in sc2. You want at least 2 guaranteed bases, your natural and your main. Backdoors effectively make your main less guaranteed. This is unacceptable as the meta evolves to more and more bases, etc etc.
You've done a fairly good job of maintaining the identity of the map, but I feel that the foreword 4 bases will never really see any play because of the proximity of bases- except of course by terrans and PF.
I think that this is a pretty cool remake, but will never be competitive. Looking foreword to your new work. |
| |
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 05:27. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
I disagree about backdoor bases. I think they can be fine. They worked in BW if done correctly and have worked fine on Crossfire in SC2 (which is a poor map for other reasons.) I've tried to fix the major reasons they don't work on Blistering Sands, and it's possible it's still broken, but the idea that backdoor bases can never work seems very unsupported.
Note that the forward bases aren't actually that close together. They take 34 seconds for a worker to move between them. This is 4 seconds further than it takes to move between the two golds on Shattered Temple, and 18 seconds longer than the distance between two close forward bases on Shakuras Plateau. I don't think proximity is an issue at all.
Edit: I'd like to add, I'm totally fine with this map never being competitive, and I want to really show the spirit of the original even if it means it is less playable, if that's the case. This is probably the way a lot of remakes are.Last edit: 2012-03-06 05:29:28 |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| Antares777 United States. March 06 2012 05:58. Posts 1648 | Profile # |
I've always wanted to experiment with backdoors but didn't have a good reference map to draw ideas and concepts from. This looks playable, so if I do make a map with backdoors I will certainly look to this if I get stuck.
I am interested in the expansion layout for this map. I think it will work great, players will not always be stuck on two bases like in the original. Holding four bases is actually possible on this map, and I actually think that the circular expansion layout works really great with the backdoor idea.
The most controversial part of this map would be the expansions by the backdoors I think, specifically their distance between one another.
 |
| | Life for you's been less than kind, so take a number stand in line, we've all been sorry we've all been hurt, but how we survive is what makes us who we are. |
|
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 06:25. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
I think it's easier to make backdoors work if the back door is further from the enemy than the front door, like on Crossfire. However, rush distance is most important in the earlier game so putting rocks on the entrance which is actually closer makes a lot of sense. I think both are viable but you could split maps with backdoors into these categories. It's also important to look at reasons one player or the other would or wouldn't want to break them open. It could make the base more vulnerable, but also lead to an expansion, for instance. Destination is a good example of this.
As I said above, it seems more reasonable when you compare the bases to bases on other maps. The distance is longer than it looks because the map is actually larger than it looks.
I think my biggest concern would be openness is different areas and how that affects balance. It's a simple thing to adjust though, once shown through a good number of games, if people play on it. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| Janders Mexico. March 06 2012 08:29. Posts 222 | Profile # |
| i think there are too many chokes that could be removed for good and taking 4 bases is ridiculously easy. Last edit: 2012-03-06 08:32:06 |
| |
|
| AGIANTSMURF United States. March 06 2012 09:10. Posts 1207 | Profile Blog # |
Very interesting,
i dont like to judge a map before i see many games played on it, but this still looks promising |
| | Thats "Grand-Master" SMURF to you..... |
|
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 09:15. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
| Yeah, I'd love to get some games played on it to really see how it plays out. I think I've developed it as much as I can without any games. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| AGIANTSMURF United States. March 06 2012 09:48. Posts 1207 | Profile Blog # |
On March 06 2012 09:15 Gfire wrote:
Yeah, I'd love to get some games played on it to really see how it plays out. I think I've developed it as much as I can without any games.
I will try to get my friends to play some on it, and we'll post reps here for you to showcase ^^ |
| | Thats "Grand-Master" SMURF to you..... |
|
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 09:54. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
| Thanks, AGIANTSMURF, I really appreciate that. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| Absurd Bunny March 06 2012 10:09. Posts 140 | Profile # |
I think that the back rocks should be removed, and the map maybe stretched out. I'm pretty sure the main reason for taking this map out was because of the rush distances, and a little stretching out would be nice.
The 3rd and 4th look really easy for T to take, and be able to defend because they are all kind of connected together. It also looks hard for any matchup vs P because the whole middle has chokes, and looks really easy for army cuts. |
|
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 10:16. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
| The map has been stretched a lot from the original. It's made from scratch at a larger size, and the rush distance is extremely long before the rocks are taken down. In general it seems like your comments are based on you looking at the map and thinking it is smaller than it is. The "chokepoints" around the middle are actually quite huge, something like the center of Shakuras Plateau I'd say. I'd welcome you to open it up in-game to get a feel for the sizing of it. |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| monitor United States. March 06 2012 10:24. Posts 2280 | Profile Blog # |
Nice rework, I like the way you fixed a lot of the areas. Even the backdoor is cool for expanding now.
Unfortunately the backdoor is still messed up because it makes the attack distance shorter than it would be nat-nat or main-main. Backdoors can work, but they can't really make aggression easier, otherwise you get a lot of imbalanced situations in ZvT especially. I don't know exactly how to fix it, but it needs reworking (or maybe just removing entirely). |
| | Starcraft 2 Mapmaker for TPW || Author of Korhal Compound |
|
|
| Gfire United States. March 06 2012 10:30. Posts 1479 | Profile # |
You think so? Hmmm... I was thinking that it made more sense for the ramp not blocked by rocks to be the one further away since the early game is when the rush distance requirements are most important. I'm pretty stubborn though. It seems like there comes a point with every one of my maps where I realize I'm wrong and have been resenting the truth the whole time even though everyone's been trying to tell me.
I'm actually stupidly stubborn... |
| | ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire |
|
|
| 1 2 Next All |
|
Store
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5AGhw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z0xSU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BywtP.jpg)
