Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (102 users) | |
|
| iamcaustic Canada. June 28 2012 03:39. Posts 802 | Profile Blog # |
CD Dark Temple BETA(by caustic)Tileset: Shakuras Map Size: 156x156 Published on: [NA](click on images to view larger version)![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dTn4Dl.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rerP0l.jpg)
Map Concept:
Following a similar idea to my other map, CD Quarantine Zone, this map features a decently large main, natural with fairly secure choke, and 3rd/4th bases that are:
1. a fair distance away;
2. fairly easy to defend ground attacks via small ramps; and
3. interchangeable in terms of which one to take, depending on spawn locations.
This is my continuing experiment to battle the death ball tendency in SC2 games, which feature very large and open thirds that are located incredibly close to the natural and main. That kind of 3-base paradigm makes it very easy for a big army to walk in and continue steamrolling through all of the opponent's bases relatively unhindered, unless the opponent has their own army ball nearby to commit to a direct engagement.
All in all, trying to make maps that force players to spread out more, and be more positionally aware on the map.
Contact Info:
Email me at caustic[at]thecanadiandominion.ca
Follow me on Twitter @iamcausticLast edit: 2012-07-20 17:42:56 |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. June 28 2012 03:50. Posts 802 | Profile Blog # |
Reserved for any generic feedback responses, etc.
Also, I'd greatly appreciate people posting replays of their games on this map. This is a map I really want to take and adjust to perfection if I can, so having visible examples of possible terrain imbalances, flawed map concepts, etc. is super helpful.
Regarding size of ramps at high ground expansions:
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 28 2012 04:22 FlaShFTW wrote:
good. i also think that some ramps for the thirds need to be bigger. they can't be THAT easy to take. i support chaos's opinion on that.
If this is proven to be the case, then I'm fine with increasing the size of the ramps. I highly welcome replays that demonstrate map flaws, so I can fix them. However, from the replays I've received of my other map, CD Quarantine Zone, I haven't yet seen any cause for alarm. Last edit: 2012-06-28 04:29:18 |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| FlaShFTW United States. June 28 2012 04:17. Posts 4960 | Profile Blog # |
map is awesome. did you get any inspiration from the scbw map Fighting Spirit? Third placement looks a lot like it.
Wow I cant scream about a third... TT.TT my life is over. xD
only problem is that everything is so chokey with the millions of ramps going to the middle. if you could combine a couple and open up some areas I think that would be great. |
| | Never Surrender. Never GG. Always Fighting. BW4LYF. Woo Jung Ho Never Forget. |
|
|
| ChaosRefined United States. June 28 2012 04:18. Posts 52 | Profile # |
| just looking at it I would say you need to widen the ramps to the thirds/high ground base pods. having a 1 wide ramp makes it far too easy to wall off/defend with static defenses. I'm assuming all spawns are enabled with the way you have the two potential thirds equally distanced from the nat? |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. June 28 2012 04:20. Posts 802 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 04:17 FlaShFTW wrote:
map is awesome. did you get any inspiration from the scbw map Fighting Spirit? Third placement looks a lot like it.
Wow I cant scream about a third... TT.TT my life is over. xD
only problem is that everything is so chokey with the millions of ramps going to the middle. if you could combine a couple and open up some areas I think that would be great.
My other map, CD Quarantine Zone, is inspired by Fighting Spirit.  There's a link to it in the OP.
Your concern about chokes is also my concern, but I left it as is for now to see how it pans out. Might end up being good depending on how split up armies become from the map layout. If it does end up being a problem, though, I already have an idea or two about how to open things up a bit. |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| FlaShFTW United States. June 28 2012 04:22. Posts 4960 | Profile Blog # |
| good. i also think that some ramps for the thirds need to be bigger. they can't be THAT easy to take. i support chaos's opinion on that. |
| | Never Surrender. Never GG. Always Fighting. BW4LYF. Woo Jung Ho Never Forget. |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. June 28 2012 04:25. Posts 802 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 04:18 ChaosRefined wrote:
just looking at it I would say you need to widen the ramps to the thirds/high ground base pods. having a 1 wide ramp makes it far too easy to wall off/defend with static defenses. I'm assuming all spawns are enabled with the way you have the two potential thirds equally distanced from the nat?
Helping defend those far away expansions with walls, static d, and a small group of units is the whole point. Making those ramps too wide makes it far too difficult to defend them due to the distance. SC2 maps right now go for near/open thirds; this is the opposite of that, with far/choked.
Also, yes, all spawns are enabled. I'm of the opinion that if you have to disable certain spawns due to imbalance, then the map itself is flawed. |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. June 28 2012 04:27. Posts 802 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 04:22 FlaShFTW wrote:
good. i also think that some ramps for the thirds need to be bigger. they can't be THAT easy to take. i support chaos's opinion on that.
If this is proven to be the case, then I'm fine with increasing the size of the ramps. I highly welcome replays that demonstrate map flaws, so I can fix them. However, from the replays I've received of my other map, CD Quarantine Zone, I haven't yet seen any cause for alarm. |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| SeinGalton South Africa. June 28 2012 05:58. Posts 295 | Profile Blog # |
It feels a little like a BW map - I quite like it. I agree on widening the ramps slightly, as right now it seems to favour turtling too much. To me Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom have really good layout in that particular regard.
At first I wanted to see two additional l bases in the center, but they don't seem necessary. I also think that whilst it may seem to suffer from circle syndrome, the layout remedies several of issues typical to such map. Well thought out and executed, sir, I think you're achieving your goals and I really hope for 4-player maps like this one to do well. |
| | They're coming to get you, Barbara. |
|
|
| Mullet_Ben United States. June 28 2012 13:34. Posts 45 | Profile # |
This map looks so good. Really, really good. It might be a little hard for Zergs to get a good engagement because of the chokes, but other than that not bad at all.
I don't necessarily agree that you should widen the ramps, but if you do, you could think about half blocking the ramps with rocks like daybreak or cloud kingdom. That way they are a little harder to defend but not as hard as fully larger ramps.
I think people should keep in mind that the small ramps work against the defender as well; the defending army also has to squeeze through a small ramp to move their army between their main and their natural, meaning they have to have good army positioning before an attack happens to be able to defend their main and their third at the same time.
It's interesting that all the comments in this thread seem to suggest that the third is too easy to take, while the comments for quarantine zone all say that the third is too hard. Honestly, I don't think enough experimentation has been done at the professional level to say whether or not these types of bases can work. The only map ever in a tournament map pool to feature single width ramps for an expansion was crossfire, and that had a whole host of other problems with it. |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. June 28 2012 14:04. Posts 802 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 13:34 Mullet_Ben wrote:
This map looks so good. Really, really good. It might be a little hard for Zergs to get a good engagement because of the chokes, but other than that not bad at all.
I don't necessarily agree that you should widen the ramps, but if you do, you could think about half blocking the ramps with rocks like daybreak or cloud kingdom. That way they are a little harder to defend but not as hard as fully larger ramps.
I think people should keep in mind that the small ramps work against the defender as well; the defending army also has to squeeze through a small ramp to move their army between their main and their natural, meaning they have to have good army positioning before an attack happens to be able to defend their main and their third at the same time.
It's interesting that all the comments in this thread seem to suggest that the third is too easy to take, while the comments for quarantine zone all say that the third is too hard. Honestly, I don't think enough experimentation has been done at the professional level to say whether or not these types of bases can work. The only map ever in a tournament map pool to feature single width ramps for an expansion was crossfire, and that had a whole host of other problems with it.
Can I just take a moment to say how much of a smart, funny, handsome, intelligent, and all around fantastic individual you are? Pretty much nailed everything right on. |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| Mullet_Ben United States. June 28 2012 15:26. Posts 45 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 14:04 stormfoxSC wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 13:34 Mullet_Ben wrote:
This map looks so good. Really, really good. It might be a little hard for Zergs to get a good engagement because of the chokes, but other than that not bad at all.
I don't necessarily agree that you should widen the ramps, but if you do, you could think about half blocking the ramps with rocks like daybreak or cloud kingdom. That way they are a little harder to defend but not as hard as fully larger ramps.
I think people should keep in mind that the small ramps work against the defender as well; the defending army also has to squeeze through a small ramp to move their army between their main and their natural, meaning they have to have good army positioning before an attack happens to be able to defend their main and their third at the same time.
It's interesting that all the comments in this thread seem to suggest that the third is too easy to take, while the comments for quarantine zone all say that the third is too hard. Honestly, I don't think enough experimentation has been done at the professional level to say whether or not these types of bases can work. The only map ever in a tournament map pool to feature single width ramps for an expansion was crossfire, and that had a whole host of other problems with it.
Can I just take a moment to say how much of a smart, funny, handsome, intelligent, and all around fantastic individual you are? Pretty much nailed everything right on.
I don't see why not. |
|
|
| IronManSC United States. June 28 2012 15:40. Posts 1660 | Profile # |
I feel like the ramps in and out of the 3rds/4ths need to be 2x instead of 1x... but at the same time, their far distance makes having 1x ramps more acceptable... hrmm =/
I really dig this concept and the execution of it, but I am feeling really troublesome about the 3rd... It's not that the 3rd is far (which it is) but even the resources are facing away from you so air harass is definitely more dangerous.
What about a 2x blocked ramp where the high ground pod is in your main, leading down into that open area? |
| | ESV Map Maker. || twitter: @ESVironManSC || Author of Ohana, Khalis, Ravage, Khaydaria, Spring |
|
|
| iamcaustic Canada. June 28 2012 16:40. Posts 802 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 15:40 IronManSC wrote:
I feel like the ramps in and out of the 3rds/4ths need to be 2x instead of 1x... but at the same time, their far distance makes having 1x ramps more acceptable... hrmm =/
I really dig this concept and the execution of it, but I am feeling really troublesome about the 3rd... It's not that the 3rd is far (which it is) but even the resources are facing away from you so air harass is definitely more dangerous.
What about a 2x blocked ramp where the high ground pod is in your main, leading down into that open area?
The reason I have the thirds as they are is to provide choice between which to take, based on spawning locations. For example, if you and your opponent spawn horizontally, it'd make more sense to take the third that's above/below your main. If spawning vertically, then it'd be better to go for the one that's to the left/right of your main. Like I've already mentioned, if 1x ramps prove to be imba, I have no problem increasing the ramp size. I want to see how 1x ends up panning out first, though. It's an idea that hasn't really seen enough experimentation, IMO.
You make a good point about the third base resources; I might want to consider pointing them toward the edge of the map like the other resource locations if air harass proves to be imba. Hard to tell without enough data, though (and I'd also note that it doesn't always face away from you, based on certain spawn locations like I already mentioned).
Not entirely sure what you mean by a 2x blocked ramp with high ground pod in the main in the context of this map. Would you be able to give a visual example of what you mean?Last edit: 2012-06-28 16:42:03 |
| | Founder and SC2 Mapmaker for the Galaxy mapmaking team || @iamcaustic || @galaxyesports || galaxyesports.com | |
|
|
| Callynn Netherlands. June 28 2012 17:30. Posts 877 | Profile # |
While this map looks really nice, I feel there is not enough open space anywhere on the map which is favoring PvZ and TvZ a lot. The sheer amount of chokes and the proximity of them to eachother means a Protoss or Terran army can just kite Zerg into the next choke with relative easy, never giving them the opportunity to surround or do multisided attacks.
Other than that, this is a beautiful map. |
| | Comparing BW with SCII is like comparing a beautiful three-master sailing ship with a modern battlecruiser. Both are beautiful in their own way, both perform the same task, but they are worlds apart in how they are built and how they are steered. |
|
|
| EatThePath United States. June 28 2012 17:32. Posts 2461 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 15:40 IronManSC wrote:
I feel like the ramps in and out of the 3rds/4ths need to be 2x instead of 1x... but at the same time, their far distance makes having 1x ramps more acceptable... hrmm =/
I really dig this concept and the execution of it, but I am feeling really troublesome about the 3rd... It's not that the 3rd is far (which it is) but even the resources are facing away from you so air harass is definitely more dangerous.
What about a 2x blocked ramp where the high ground pod is in your main, leading down into that open area?
Just what ironman said, great concept and good execution, but 3rd may be problematic...
For me biggest issue is that protoss or terran can expand towards zerg in adjacent spawns, and they only have to guard a tiny ramp. Then they can clear the middle with the army to force a fight (no counter attack), or just swing through the 3rd as a launching point. It makes zerg's usual counter play almost impossible if the game is on even footing. And it's not really that zerg has to be able to counter, it's just the threat, which is very little here bar mutas.
However maybe it's fine. Cool map anyway! |
| | Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
