|
[M] (2) TPW Astro Haze by Samro EU (custom Melee) , NA (custom Meleey) - thx TPW/Mereel! Top5 MotM September - read thread
Overviews:
90degree: + Show Spoiler +
60degree: + Show Spoiler +
Playable Size: 156x144
Concept: The expansion pattern gives several optionsstarting with the third base. The layout opens up with each base taken, demanding scouting, positioning and area control.
Features:
- 12 regular bases, 1 XWT low in between two large central multi-path highrounds.
- Nats behind smaller choke, Nats' plateaus have two ramps and additional choke wheras 3 high yield mineral patches with 48min each block half of one of the ramps and 6x6rocks block half of the other.
- low dropable cliffs at regular Thirds and losb-field close to lowground Thirds.
- Two-way highground cliffs reaching around corner Fourths, other late bases connected via small bridge to your bases.
images base by base:
Mains + Show Spoiler +
Nats + Show Spoiler +
regular Thirds with low droppods + Show Spoiler +
lowground Thirds with losb fields + Show Spoiler +
corner bases with highrounds + Show Spoiler +
bases behind bridges + Show Spoiler +
XWT with central highround pods + Show Spoiler +
top and low highround pods + Show Spoiler +
thanks to madsquare for feedback and suggestions!
edit: added TPW
|
As far as I can work out from a cursory look, it strikes me as similar to Ohana, but with another expansion in the opposite direction. Obviously this ends up making the map quite a bit bigger, so it won't be the same, but the layout doesn't strike me as any sort of technical, similar to what I think of Ohana(boring). As for the partial mineral block on the ramp, it should be moved to the top of the ramps instead, so it makes walloffs on that ramp a bit easier, and makes a more noticeable impact in general.
In summary, I'd say it's a very pretty map, and also a solid one at first glance, but I want to see maps which have something that are exciting, mentally stimulating, and cool. I don't see that here. It's got those sorta basics that have been established with recent maps, i.e. choice of expos, use of harass-paths, etc. but it doesn't go any further than that, so I guess it sorta falls flat for me.
|
Map is really pretty. I can't comment on balance until I play on it b/c it's sort of hard to read the different heights from the overview. Looks like it will probably be good though.
|
Honestly the expansion pattern bores me and I worry about CS, but it has a lot of cool things going for it and samro put a lot of work into tweaking it into shape, which shows. And it is very pretty of course. ^^
The best part is the tower + center high grounds, everything else is so many miscellaneous pieces of furniture in a nice enough room. I really wish there was something more interesting along the extremes of the meridian, however the LosB will in fact create cool positioning adjustments if two armies are circling at 12 or 6. If we get some macro games I'm sure we'll see this. Too much mobility there though, imo.
I will take back my "harsh" criticism (which is sent with love) if someone provides enlightenment. (Don't be fooled, this map is an easy 7/ or 8/10 at least, but I wish it had a more apparent "concept". Am I missing something?)
|
On September 25 2012 09:17 NewSunshine wrote: As far as I can work out from a cursory look, it strikes me as similar to Ohana, but with another expansion in the opposite direction. Obviously this ends up making the map quite a bit bigger, so it won't be the same, but the layout doesn't strike me as any sort of technical, similar to what I think of Ohana(boring). As for the partial mineral block on the ramp, it should be moved to the top of the ramps instead, so it makes walloffs on that ramp a bit easier, and makes a more noticeable impact in general.
In summary, I'd say it's a very pretty map, and also a solid one at first glance, but I want to see maps which have something that are exciting, mentally stimulating, and cool. I don't see that here. It's got those sorta basics that have been established with recent maps, i.e. choice of expos, use of harass-paths, etc. but it doesn't go any further than that, so I guess it sorta falls flat for me.
Go and play it before trying a comparison with Ohana or I have to take your comparison with Ohana as a cheap shot to discredit the map only because both look good
Actually I do see your point and you are not really wrong with the comparison. This is quite logical because that is the map's starting point. It tries to position itself as a potential replacement. The map has a two-path (four!) layout like Ohana or you could say the four bases are taken from Daybreak: The map does not try to do something experimental or super-cool ( i could do that, but that was not what I was up to here), it tries to be solid with a new and very wide open middle. Most of the time went into getting the spacing the way it should be, tweaking each ramp and corner to make things flow well. It starts with map concepts like Ohana and Daybreak and goes a step further with the middle that might be the maps main feature.
The mineral block is where it should be. It is not there to help you wall-in, but restrict movement in and out a bit in-front of the area that you can easily observe. If that does not work I will try moving it or eventually take it away.
Your general idea to promote cool conceptual maps is something I support, but it is just wrong to condemn a map for being solid. I am not intersted in giving a base away almost for free for example or just move it a bit further away just for the sake of innovation
On September 25 2012 10:23 Fatam wrote: Map is really pretty. I can't comment on balance until I play on it b/c it's sort of hard to read the different heights from the overview. Looks like it will probably be good though.
The 60degree image should be good enough, no? I could have had another texturing that shows the second level clearly, but i opted for the graphical pattern. In-game that should be quite nice actually. But it is true, many texturing seems to be designed to work in Overview-only because people tend to judge from the overview ion many cases alone.
On September 25 2012 11:26 EatThePath wrote: Honestly the expansion pattern bores me and I worry about CS, but it has a lot of cool things going for it and samro put a lot of work into tweaking it into shape, which shows. And it is very pretty of course. ^^
The best part is the tower + center high grounds, everything else is so many miscellaneous pieces of furniture in a nice enough room. I really wish there was something more interesting along the extremes of the meridian, however the LosB will in fact create cool positioning adjustments if two armies are circling at 12 or 6. If we get some macro games I'm sure we'll see this. Too much mobility there though, imo.
I will take back my "harsh" criticism (which is sent with love) if someone provides enlightenment. (Don't be fooled, this map is an easy 7/ or 8/10 at least, but I wish it had a more apparent "concept". Am I missing something?)
Tweaking into shape: Thank you very much for pointing this out! <3
As you say it is not about the expansion pattern, but the middle. I want to add something: it is mainly how the bases are connected with the map's middle area. I hope it shows in some games how the lowest and highest bases connect to the centre. Too bad it is not set before the final
Your criticism is not harsh, or at least not formulated too harsh. I see where you are coming from, but I disagree with your judgement obviously: People just look for features and not so much to how areas are connected. Example: The bases behind the bridge is difficult to reinforce without having control of the central highround in the middle. The fourths can be controlled with an arm yclose by third area, but you would need much time to get there to defend against harassment from ther fourth cliff, etc... It is the small things here.
Interesting how you say that there is too much mobility while NewSunshine says it is similar to static Ohana :D Might be someone wrong here? Anyway, we will see.
|
But it is true, many texturing seems to be designed to work in Overview-only because people tend to judge from the overview ion many cases alone.
Yeah, basically. We are shoehorned into trying to please people right off the bat with an awesome overview. A sad reality. I have no probs with the texturing. As I said, I think it's pretty (so I do like the texturing) and I'll play it before I love on it or hate on it too strongly, whichever the case may be :-P
Maybe it sounds silly but I think just because of the middle (different shape, only 1 XNT) it should (probably) play different enough from ohana. Not to mention there's a slew of other fairly major differences (I think it's much more similar to daybreak than ohana tbh). But games will tell the tale.
|
On September 25 2012 15:58 Samro225am wrote:Go and play it before trying a comparison with Ohana or I have to take your comparison with Ohana as a cheap shot to discredit the map only because both look good Actually I do see your point and you are not really wrong with the comparison. This is quite logical because that is the map's starting point. It tries to position itself as a potential replacement. The map has a two-path (four!) layout like Ohana or you could say the four bases are taken from Daybreak: The map does not try to do something experimental or super-cool ( i could do that, but that was not what I was up to here), it tries to be solid with a new and very wide open middle. Most of the time went into getting the spacing the way it should be, tweaking each ramp and corner to make things flow well. It starts with map concepts like Ohana and Daybreak and goes a step further with the middle that might be the maps main feature. The mineral block is where it should be. It is not there to help you wall-in, but restrict movement in and out a bit in-front of the area that you can easily observe. If that does not work I will try moving it or eventually take it away. Your general idea to promote cool conceptual maps is something I support, but it is just wrong to condemn a map for being solid. I am not intersted in giving a base away almost for free for example or just move it a bit further away just for the sake of innovation Your points are fair, and don't take any comparisons with Ohana too seriously, they are very well different maps. I don't condemn the map though, I do think it is quite solid which is your goal, I just think it's not as interesting as it perhaps could be, since it's trying to be solid by established standards. I will watch the games on it and see how it all plays out though - I realize a map can often have a very different presence once you're in it.
|
|
On September 25 2012 21:58 Rukis wrote: Can't find it on NA ):
very sorry for that. i thought it should be up as a melee. maybe check arcade, too?
|
It wasnt in Arcade either, you sure you published it on NA?
|
UPDATE
TPW uploaded my map to NA - following monitor's idea it is custom melee, not Arcade. Apologies for the inconvenience and delay. Thanks Mereel!
|
woot I can finally play it.
The comment about mobility is specifically about the ease of east/west movement and repositioning at those top and bottom expansion. It would be ideal if it was more constricted/circuitous here to make up for the huuuuge width of the map split, so it was more meaningful to control the high ground area in the middle. But I will play and we shall see.
|
I will upload Astro Haze friday in the afternoon. So sorry for the inconvenience on NA.
|
|
On September 27 2012 06:54 Icetoad wrote: I will upload Astro Haze friday in the afternoon. So sorry for the inconvenience on NA.
it is up already, icetoad, no woories!
|
Okay, the proportions and base distances are significantly different in-game than the overview picture would lead you to believe. I was convinced they were "good", now everything seems... perfect. ^^
This map should definitely be on ladder. Because of the rush distance and the nice small outside choke bridge at the 3rd base, it's a "macro" map, but it has way more interesting things going on than daybreak, the closest thing for comparison. The low ground 3rd is a lot more viable than I first thought and the north and south edge bases are farther apart than I thought. This should provide enough stability in all stages of the game.
|
On September 29 2012 05:22 EatThePath wrote: Okay, the proportions and base distances are significantly different in-game than the overview picture would lead you to believe. I was convinced they were "good", now everything seems... perfect. ^^
This map should definitely be on ladder. Because of the rush distance and the nice small outside choke bridge at the 3rd base, it's a "macro" map, but it has way more interesting things going on than daybreak, the closest thing for comparison. The low ground 3rd is a lot more viable than I first thought and the north and south edge bases are farther apart than I thought. This should provide enough stability in all stages of the game.
thank you very much for your very positive reply after playing the map
now please help spread the news!
|
Map is really awesome and also looking pretty cool. but its matter of sorrow that i have never played it.
|
On October 01 2012 13:52 johnmac12 wrote: Map is really awesome and also looking pretty cool. but its matter of sorrow that i have never played it. SEA/KR anyone?
|
voted for your map here
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=372472
Sorta wanted to vote for wightbane as well but alas I only have the 1 vote. (was a tad surprised that bel'shir was winning, great map but I think this is probably better. But then again people seem to always like pretty, green maps)
|
|
|
|