Update: The main bases have been widened so tanks at the 3-gas expansions (low ground in the center) cannot hit the main buildings anymore. Other parts of the base are still exposed to low-ground attacks if the attackers can get sight up into the main. This change is live on the US and SEA servers.
The annotated image below shows the locations of these changes:
Destructible rocks are now blocking the high-yield expos, circled in green.
LoS blockers in NW and SE can hide proxy buildings and provide a place for attackers or defenders to set up at the center expansions, marked with magenta.
I created a custom doodad with the sponsor's logo, which does not affect the pathing of units, placements are circled in yellow. See a close-up of the doodad below.
A custom doodad I made for the VISTA sponsor:
A summary from the map analyzer of the VISTA map version:
The information in the rest of the post also applies to the VISTA version as well.
(4) Axis of Industry 1.1
Take up position along the porous center line to protect your commercial interests.
Axis of Industry is a melee map with four starting locations. The concept at the heart of this map is a porous line of unpathable cliffs across the otherwise open center. The line (axis) creates a unique battlefield with different tactical opportunities for early, mid and late-game armies.
Center expos are non-standard: 7 mineral patches and 3 gas geysers, one gas blocked by destructible debris. (More about this below)
Rush distances on this map are comparable to the Blizzard ladder map pool:
In cross-positions the rush distance is about 170 units like cross-positions on Metalopolis.
In close positions the rush distance is about 120 units like the shortest distances on Delta Quadrant or Lost Temple.
Details Axis of Industry is all about the center, it has valuable bases and a terrain set up for interesting battles.
The main mineral line is very close to the map boundary, making it relatively safe. One end of the main is bordered by high ground that is unpathable; this reduces the amount of cliff-walking space to a long-but-manageable border. The unpathable cliff is also a place for either player to hide air units.
Three production buildings or four small buildings are enough to wall in the natural choke, making fast expand builds at least a possibility on this map.
3-Gas Expansions You can't put a 3-gas expansion on a competitive melee map, that's crazy!
Of course we can, its early and we should experiment. But here's an argument why the 3-gas expos are not really so crazy:
The 3-gas expo has only 7 mineral patches.
One geyser is blocked by destructible debris. 3-gas might be really awesome but you have to invest in enough army to get all three running.
They are in the center of the map, a significant distance by ground from any main+natural. Even a defense-oriented strategy has to come up with a plan for protecting the main base and a 3-gas base, so lazy turtlers, you'll have to work.
If you take a 3-gas that is not the one nestled against your own main, then it is cliffable.
Other Notes
This map has many minor asymmetries, but I carefully balanced it with the map analyzer.
When deciding on the ratio between gaps and cliffs for the center line I decided to err on the side of a little more open and a variety of "dot" sizes. The opportunity to block chokes or use them to reduce your attackable surface area is there, but they are open enough that armies can move through them quickly.
Comparison to Lost Temple Posters have voiced concerns that the close spawns on this map are too close together, or that in cross-spawns a Terran player can easily turtle at the choke between close spawns and happily take five bases. These concerns are valid, a good map should not have any spawns too close or allow too many bases to be easily protected. However, I believe this image comparing Axis of Industry to Lost Temple shows that, on a 1-to-1 scale, the maps have similar close-spawns with plenty of space in between for army movement. Consider this: what can a tank/turret blob on Axis of Industry do that the same blob cannot at the watchtower on Lost Temple?
Change Log 1.1 -Reduced unpathable cliffs adjacent to mains and water-filled pits to open the choke in the SW and NE from large to very large. -shifted 3-gas expos in the center slightly, and rotated their placement
Or search "Axis of Industry" to play, currently on the US server and on EU thanks to d4d. Please PM me if you are willing to commit a map slot on a different server.
I love the three gas expansion idea. In fact, I like every little detail on this map. It has high-yield bases in reasonable locations, an easy to wall in natural, small locations with LoSBs, large mains, and the little spokes coming up in the center make this map totally awesome!
Q: Is it better to have a natural choke 12 squares wide? I always made my maps with nat chokes 8 squares wide. Is that too small in your opinion?
On September 18 2010 03:59 Antares777 wrote: Q: Is it better to have a natural choke 12 squares wide? I always made my maps with nat chokes 8 squares wide. Is that too small in your opinion?
Let's assume that everything from 8-square nat chokes all the way up to Metalopolis 359-degrees open naturals are balanced in all match ups. Probably the best thing mappers can do is try to use all sorts of chokes so the community has the biggest variety to test on, and over time we'll find out that, say, the Metalopolis nat is ridiculous or 8-squares is too easy for to Terran to go 14 CC 14 Barracks nat-wall in, which is probably what Flash will do with an 8-square nat when he switches over.
On September 18 2010 03:59 Antares777 wrote: Q: Is it better to have a natural choke 12 squares wide? I always made my maps with nat chokes 8 squares wide. Is that too small in your opinion?
Let's assume that everything from 8-square nat chokes all the way up to Metalopolis 359-degrees open naturals are balanced in all match ups. Probably the best thing mappers can do is try to use all sorts of chokes so the community has the biggest variety to test on, and over time we'll find out that, say, the Metalopolis nat is ridiculous or 8-squares is too easy for to Terran to go 14 CC 14 Barracks nat-wall in, which is probably what Flash will do with an 8-square nat when he switches over.
^Okay.
I personally despise one-base all-ins etc, and love players who play like everyone did in BW, expanding all over the place. That is why I made my chokes small, so that fe builds are possible. I rarely put backdoor entrances on my maps, but I might have to if I encourage all of this fe stuff. I am also a very indolent person and DO NOT want to change all the chokes on my maps *groan* that would take forever. I'll just continue to test them and improve my designs based on what went wrong with previous ones and try to decide what size is good for a choke.
I'm not against FE! All I'm saying is we gotta test out what exactly is too big or too small. Too big encourages one-basing, but how big is too big?
And I believe there is a threshold for too-small natural choke, say 3 squares. With a choke that small, you could just tell me before the game "I'm fast expanding, you can't stop it" and your forge makes a ling-tight wall-in faster than I can 6-pool you, and then cannons before I can even dream of doing a roach bust--I did not do the math, but I don't think this is an exaggeration.
If there is any ~8-minute strat you can do while completely ignoring the opponent then the game or the map is broken, in my opinion. So yeah, don't change all your chokes, let's test them!
This looks really good from aesthetics-point-of-view. The theme with the mid is interesting, too, and seems fairly balanced.
Some other parts bug me, though. First of all, the High-Yield seems a fair bit too easy to protect. Even if players spawn in close ground positions, it is much safer third than any other expansion on the map, and don't let me get started about how safe it is if you are in cross or close air positions.
Another issue is that when people spawn cross positions, your whole side is safe behind one choke. There are absolutely zero flanking options for Zerg, and Five bases are going to be all Terran will ever need.
These two facts do not encourage only fast expanding. They also encourage turtling. If you can turtle at 5 bases with fairly high safety, you can bet your asses off that every Terran will be doing it. This really capitalizes on effectiveness of dropships and air harassment, since no one in their right of mind attacks a well-defended choke.
Basically, this is a map where spawning cross-positions is potentially harmful for the zerg player. They do not benefit from defending a choke like the other two races do, due to their mass not fitting there. Therefore Zergs will prefer to be ready to defend/flank in the open mid, whereas Terran players will be defending the choke and keeping their side's 3-gas expansions closed with tanks. I doubt Zergs can really break that defense lategame.
While I like people expanding like crazy just as much as you do, making closed maps that encourage turtling is not the way to go.
Mh, if you spawn cross or not on the same side this map gonna be a late game macro monster. I see the possibilty that T gonna try to sit on 5 bases and try to camp till victory but as zerg you can grab your 3 gax expos and drop him on those mains.
But if both start on the same side i don't see a chance there'll be any late game (only i hidden expo could work there due to the map size). This is also an issue on LT but there the middle area between both players is bigger. Looks like you can easily trap one player inside and prevent any expos outside going up Oo
On September 18 2010 05:05 Amadi wrote: This looks really good from aesthetics-point-of-view. The theme with the mid is interesting, too, and seems fairly balanced.
Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to know what you think of my responses to your concerns, too.
Some other parts bug me, though. First of all, the High-Yield seems a fair bit too easy to protect. Even if players spawn in close ground positions, it is much safer third than any other expansion on the map, and don't let me get started about how safe it is if you are in cross or close air positions.
My thoughts on gold expos are enough to start a whole new thread, but here's a summary: high-yield expansions are not the end-all, be-all! There has been a lot of discussion on TL about the exact effectiveness of high-yield, especially with regard to MULEs, but I think we can all agree on the obvious stuff:
1. You gather minerals at a higher rate, but the current standard is six patches. This means your actual rate of mining isn't 1.4x normal, because there are less patches to mine from, and high-yield patches have the same 1500 minerals as a normal patch, so a gold expo is in long run less rich. Essentially, you can saturate mineral mining with less workers, which is good but not game-breaking.
2. You cannot mine gas any faster from a HY expo, so let's simplify a bit to say HY doesn't push you into high-tech any faster.
3. I purposefully gave it a wide ramp and lots of space around the outside for air-born harass.
I honestly don't think the HY expos are out of control on this map.
Another issue is that when people spawn cross positions, your whole side is safe behind one choke. There are absolutely zero flanking options for Zerg, and Five bases are going to be all Terran will ever need.
I'd argue that this is a monster choke. If you look at the openness in the map analyzer image you'll see that it is as wide as any open space on Lost Temple. Additionally, the sides of the choke are unpathable cliffs--meaning a ground-based army committed to plugging the gap needs something to protect against mutas or void rays or drops.
But I understand your concern, I could take a little off of the unpathable cliffs to make the choke to the center even wider.
These two facts do not encourage only fast expanding. They also encourage turtling. If you can turtle at 5 bases with fairly high safety, you can bet your asses off that every Terran will be doing it. This really capitalizes on effectiveness of dropships and air harassment, since no one in their right of mind attacks a well-defended choke.
Basically, this is a map where spawning cross-positions is potentially harmful for the zerg player. They do not benefit from defending a choke like the other two races do, due to their mass not fitting there. Therefore Zergs will prefer to be ready to defend/flank in the open mid, whereas Terran players will be defending the choke and keeping their side's 3-gas expansions closed with tanks. I doubt Zergs can really break that defense lategame.
While I like people expanding like crazy just as much as you do, making closed maps that encourage turtling is not the way to go.
If a Terran player bottled himself up behind the center choke then he is ceding two of the 3-gas expos to the other player, and yes he could use tanks to neutralize the 3-gas on his side. That's just it, though, two 3-gas bases is like three 2-gas bases; Zerg has a lot of nasty options with that much gas! Bro lords would be my personal choice. And even if a Terran holds the large choke and defends his main, it is a tall order to turtle all the way across the diagonal of this 140x140 playable map.
I am not convinced one way or the other, but I do think it is non-trivial to try and play a map-cut turtle strategy here.
I used all my paint skills to paint this awesome image how i would change the map.
red lines = new path (could be initially blocked if needed) red semi circle = new elevated area (if needed walk/dropable)
The other lines should be clear ^^ Also i would turn gold into blue (or scrap it) and turn the 3 gas blue into 3 gas + gold < high rish but high reward there.
Map seems a little terran favored, 1 ramp base with rear only entrance, cliffside that can watch 2 expansions and high yield mins at the top of a ramp, and several chokes for sensor towers.
However, I really like the overall design and the line in the middle is an awesome idea.
One thing I got wrong on my first look is that I thought dark semi-circles near unpathable cliffs were made out of sight blockers. Apparently they are not, but it'd be food for thought. They would be fairly interesting if they were. Good spot to wait for an ambush or to launch a counterattack to enemy base once he runs past you. At least something I'd think about.
Some other parts bug me, though. First of all, the High-Yield seems a fair bit too easy to protect. Even if players spawn in close ground positions, it is much safer third than any other expansion on the map, and don't let me get started about how safe it is if you are in cross or close air positions.
My thoughts on gold expos are enough to start a whole new thread, but here's a summary: high-yield expansions are not the end-all, be-all! There has been a lot of discussion on TL about the exact effectiveness of high-yield, especially with regard to MULEs, but I think we can all agree on the obvious stuff:
1. You gather minerals at a higher rate, but the current standard is six patches. This means your actual rate of mining isn't 1.4x normal, because there are less patches to mine from, and high-yield patches have the same 1500 minerals as a normal patch, so a gold expo is in long run less rich. Essentially, you can saturate mineral mining with less workers, which is good but not game-breaking.
2. You cannot mine gas any faster from a HY expo, so let's simplify a bit to say HY doesn't push you into high-tech any faster.
3. I purposefully gave it a wide ramp and lots of space around the outside for air-born harass.
I honestly don't think the HY expos are out of control on this map.
The ramp still makes it easier to defend than your natural. Only thing going for your natural over it is proximity to your mainbase allowing for faster reinforcements.
It might not be out-of-control, but comparing to blizzard maps, it is very risk-safe. I kind of like how it creates a race for control if the players spawn in close positions, though.
You still might want to look at the mineral amounts in each gold patch there, though, or something.
Another interesting fact is how decreasing the size of the hole next to the HY actually makes the high yield harder to hold, since the aggressor can more easily threaten both natural and the high yield.
Another issue is that when people spawn cross positions, your whole side is safe behind one choke. There are absolutely zero flanking options for Zerg, and Five bases are going to be all Terran will ever need.
I'd argue that this is a monster choke. If you look at the openness in the map analyzer image you'll see that it is as wide as any open space on Lost Temple. Additionally, the sides of the choke are unpathable cliffs--meaning a ground-based army committed to plugging the gap needs something to protect against mutas or void rays or drops.
But I understand your concern, I could take a little off of the unpathable cliffs to make the choke to the center even wider.
The main issue here is that once terran has 3 bases, it is not very expensive for them to throw down one or two Planetary Fortresses in that choke. Suddenly, it turns into a very tight defense position that is really hard if not impossible to break through. On most maps this is not really an option due to the cost of the fortresses compared to the area they are holding, but on this map I can see it being a legitimate strategy. Defending five bases with those two buildings suddenly makes them very cost efficient.
I don't want to jump the gun here, cause it might just be my bad experiences attacking chokes speaking, but I think it could be a bit wider considering its' importance.
These two facts do not encourage only fast expanding. They also encourage turtling. If you can turtle at 5 bases with fairly high safety, you can bet your asses off that every Terran will be doing it. This really capitalizes on effectiveness of dropships and air harassment, since no one in their right of mind attacks a well-defended choke.
Basically, this is a map where spawning cross-positions is potentially harmful for the zerg player. They do not benefit from defending a choke like the other two races do, due to their mass not fitting there. Therefore Zergs will prefer to be ready to defend/flank in the open mid, whereas Terran players will be defending the choke and keeping their side's 3-gas expansions closed with tanks. I doubt Zergs can really break that defense lategame.
While I like people expanding like crazy just as much as you do, making closed maps that encourage turtling is not the way to go.
If a Terran player bottled himself up behind the center choke then he is ceding two of the 3-gas expos to the other player, and yes he could use tanks to neutralize the 3-gas on his side. That's just it, though, two 3-gas bases is like three 2-gas bases; Zerg has a lot of nasty options with that much gas! Bro lords would be my personal choice. And even if a Terran holds the large choke and defends his main, it is a tall order to turtle all the way across the diagonal of this 140x140 playable map.
I am not convinced one way or the other, but I do think it is non-trivial to try and play a map-cut turtle strategy here.
The issue with zerg is that while they are supposed to reinforce faster, and therefore throwing units at a wall and reinforcing seems legit, it really isn't since the defender doesn't have to reinforce as much. They are not losing as many troops.
Adding more secluded locations for Nydus entrances might help, too.
It might be fine, though. Turtling terrans already cause problems to zerg in any maps where they can secure multiple bases and still turtle up until their army is ready to steamroll, so this is nothing special. It might just be a logical outcome of the current balance. It might be interesting to see how thigns change with the patch, especially if the "leaked" notes are true, as that would increase efficiency of both Nydus play (allowing cancels) and Overlord Drops (speed upgrade.).
You are probably right that it is fine now. It can't be worse than Kulas Ravine, and that is on the current rotation. I do love that map but Zerg is at a severe disadvantage.
Perhaps the issue isn't with the maps, but with zerg's inability to adapt.
Tons of great feedback, thanks everyone! Responses to many people mixed in below:
On September 18 2010 06:14 dezi wrote: I used all my paint skills to paint this awesome image how i would change the map.
red lines = new path (could be initially blocked if needed) red semi circle = new elevated area (if needed walk/dropable)
The other lines should be clear ^^ Also i would turn gold into blue (or scrap it) and turn the 3 gas blue into 3 gas + gold < high rish but high reward there.
Your changes definitely result in a map with more routes and therefore solve problems that folks are bringing up in this thread.
There are two reasons why I am going to try and find other solutions than what you proposed, dezi, and again not because your altered map isn't good.
1. I'd like the central theme of a line across almost the entire diagonal of the map to stay intact, it gives the map a unique feel.
2. The new paths you propose are not bad, but they alter the purpose of the unpathable cliff attached to the mains. Compare the mains on Axis of Industry to Lost Temple or Metalopolis--those maps really don't have a very long cliff-walk border. If we cut new paths like you said, then there is a much longer cliff to defend, as well as tanks being able to hit lots of area in the main. I'm not saying that breaks a map, but I really meant for the unpathable cliff to break up the main's exposure as well as being an offensive or defensive hiding spot for flyers.
On September 18 2010 06:18 BoomStevo wrote: Just noticed, no watch towers. On purpose?
Yep. In general I think towers need to be placed carefully. If I placed them somewhere in the NE/SW then it would make the cut-the-map/turtle problem worse, and if I placed them in the center then I believe it would reduce the amount of maneuvering players will do in the center if towers end up giving them a focal point to stage on.
On September 18 2010 06:49 Amadi wrote: One thing I got wrong on my first look is that I thought dark semi-circles near unpathable cliffs were made out of sight blockers. Apparently they are not, but it'd be food for thought. They would be fairly interesting if they were. Good spot to wait for an ambush or to launch a counterattack to enemy base once he runs past you. At least something I'd think about.
They are LoS blockers! And I agree they are along good paths for ambushes/run-bys.
Some other parts bug me, though. First of all, the High-Yield seems a fair bit too easy to protect. Even if players spawn in close ground positions, it is much safer third than any other expansion on the map, and don't let me get started about how safe it is if you are in cross or close air positions.
My thoughts on gold expos are enough to start a whole new thread, but here's a summary: high-yield expansions are not the end-all, be-all! There has been a lot of discussion on TL about the exact effectiveness of high-yield, especially with regard to MULEs, but I think we can all agree on the obvious stuff:
1. You gather minerals at a higher rate, but the current standard is six patches. This means your actual rate of mining isn't 1.4x normal, because there are less patches to mine from, and high-yield patches have the same 1500 minerals as a normal patch, so a gold expo is in long run less rich. Essentially, you can saturate mineral mining with less workers, which is good but not game-breaking.
2. You cannot mine gas any faster from a HY expo, so let's simplify a bit to say HY doesn't push you into high-tech any faster.
3. I purposefully gave it a wide ramp and lots of space around the outside for air-born harass.
I honestly don't think the HY expos are out of control on this map.
The ramp still makes it easier to defend than your natural. Only thing going for your natural over it is proximity to your mainbase allowing for faster reinforcements.
It might not be out-of-control, but comparing to blizzard maps, it is very risk-safe. I kind of like how it creates a race for control if the players spawn in close positions, though.
You still might want to look at the mineral amounts in each gold patch there, though, or something.
Another interesting fact is how decreasing the size of the hole next to the HY actually makes the high yield harder to hold, since the aggressor can more easily threaten both natural and the high yield.
Okay, I'll think about making some changes there. Would it matter if that HY was a normal expo? I mean, would you want a regular expo in the same spot to be less safe?
Another issue is that when people spawn cross positions, your whole side is safe behind one choke. There are absolutely zero flanking options for Zerg, and Five bases are going to be all Terran will ever need.
I'd argue that this is a monster choke. If you look at the openness in the map analyzer image you'll see that it is as wide as any open space on Lost Temple. Additionally, the sides of the choke are unpathable cliffs--meaning a ground-based army committed to plugging the gap needs something to protect against mutas or void rays or drops.
But I understand your concern, I could take a little off of the unpathable cliffs to make the choke to the center even wider.
The main issue here is that once terran has 3 bases, it is not very expensive for them to throw down one or two Planetary Fortresses in that choke. Suddenly, it turns into a very tight defense position that is really hard if not impossible to break through. On most maps this is not really an option due to the cost of the fortresses compared to the area they are holding, but on this map I can see it being a legitimate strategy. Defending five bases with those two buildings suddenly makes them very cost efficient.
I don't want to jump the gun here, cause it might just be my bad experiences attacking chokes speaking, but I think it could be a bit wider considering its' importance.
Let me try cutting off the ends of the unpathable cliffs next to mains and really, really widening the offending choke such that a PF or two isn't a no-brainer. I agree that on 3 base a Terran player could do that, and I agree with you and everyone in the thread that a major lane outside of your starting area shouldn't be so easy to control.
These two facts do not encourage only fast expanding. They also encourage turtling. If you can turtle at 5 bases with fairly high safety, you can bet your asses off that every Terran will be doing it. This really capitalizes on effectiveness of dropships and air harassment, since no one in their right of mind attacks a well-defended choke.
Basically, this is a map where spawning cross-positions is potentially harmful for the zerg player. They do not benefit from defending a choke like the other two races do, due to their mass not fitting there. Therefore Zergs will prefer to be ready to defend/flank in the open mid, whereas Terran players will be defending the choke and keeping their side's 3-gas expansions closed with tanks. I doubt Zergs can really break that defense lategame.
While I like people expanding like crazy just as much as you do, making closed maps that encourage turtling is not the way to go.
If a Terran player bottled himself up behind the center choke then he is ceding two of the 3-gas expos to the other player, and yes he could use tanks to neutralize the 3-gas on his side. That's just it, though, two 3-gas bases is like three 2-gas bases; Zerg has a lot of nasty options with that much gas! Bro lords would be my personal choice. And even if a Terran holds the large choke and defends his main, it is a tall order to turtle all the way across the diagonal of this 140x140 playable map.
I am not convinced one way or the other, but I do think it is non-trivial to try and play a map-cut turtle strategy here.
The issue with zerg is that while they are supposed to reinforce faster, and therefore throwing units at a wall and reinforcing seems legit, it really isn't since the defender doesn't have to reinforce as much. They are not losing as many troops.
Adding more secluded locations for Nydus entrances might help, too.
It might be fine, though. Turtling terrans already cause problems to zerg in any maps where they can secure multiple bases and still turtle up until their army is ready to steamroll, so this is nothing special. It might just be a logical outcome of the current balance. It might be interesting to see how thigns change with the patch, especially if the "leaked" notes are true, as that would increase efficiency of both Nydus play (allowing cancels) and Overlord Drops (speed upgrade.).
You are probably right that it is fine now. It can't be worse than Kulas Ravine, and that is on the current rotation. I do love that map but Zerg is at a severe disadvantage.
Perhaps the issue isn't with the maps, but with zerg's inability to adapt.
As a zerg player, I get frustrated losing head-on battles all the time, let alone walking into a tight defense. I don't want this map to encourage turtling any more than other maps, but I hope that the 3-gas expos give zerg or any player up against a turtle the option of going over the top: ultras/brood lords, carriers+mothership, something that just out-classes defenses.
Anyway, I hear you about zerg and mappers must be vigilent. What can you do when marines beat brood lords and mauraders beat ultras? (please no flames, just joking)
Update OP with new version. I opened up the map in the SW and NE so it is more difficult for a Terran player to turtle up on five bases. I think the choke was pretty big before though, now its really huge.
I love it, the only issue I see is that in 1v1 the close starting locations on same sides would be REALLY close. Is there a way you could always get long starting locations in 1v1?
On September 22 2010 02:21 Whiplash wrote: I love it, the only issue I see is that in 1v1 the close starting locations on same sides would be REALLY close. Is there a way you could always get long starting locations in 1v1?
This map is 140x140 playable area, so the close spawns are not as close as they appear to be if you are used to looking at Blizzard maps, almost all of which are 128x128, and even smaller playable.
The close spawns on Axis of Industry are about 120 units, which is the same as Delta Quadrant or Lost Temple close spawns. If you can handle it there, you can handle it here!
On September 22 2010 02:21 Whiplash wrote: I love it, the only issue I see is that in 1v1 the close starting locations on same sides would be REALLY close. Is there a way you could always get long starting locations in 1v1?
This map is 140x140 playable area, so the close spawns are not as close as they appear to be if you are used to looking at Blizzard maps, almost all of which are 128x128, and even smaller playable.
The close spawns on Axis of Industry are about 120 units, which is the same as Delta Quadrant or Lost Temple close spawns. If you can handle it there, you can handle it here!
even though the distances might not be as close as in lost temple the middle area is very small (between the two bases) so if it is the close locations the map pretty much just gets cut in half and other than hidden expos will not be used. and you are left with very few expansions.
OneFiereceZealot: I added this little section to the OP; do you still think that?
Comparison to Lost Temple Posters have voiced concerns that the close spawns on this map are too close together, or that in cross-spawns a Terran player can easily turtle at the choke between close spawns and happily take five bases. These concerns are valid, a good map should not have any spawns too close or allow too many bases to be easily protected. However, I believe this image comparing Axis of Industry to Lost Temple shows that, on a 1-to-1 scale, the maps have similar close-spawns with plenty of space in between for army movement. Consider this: what can a tank/turret blob on Axis of Industry do that the same blob cannot at the watchtower on Lost Temple?
Is your Bnet ID RaiNmAker or something like that? I did see someone had modified it. I don't mind that you made your own version, and I'm very glad that you posted here to say so, that's cool of you. Maybe in the published map description you could credit me as the original author?
I'm not RaiNmAker or something like that I did credit you as much as i could if you read description under the headline there you could see all the details, appreciate your loyalty about your map. I was glade to see your response , but you did't wrote your thoughts about my mod of your map (good or bad) you should try it if you have good enough PC. I think it's the one of the most beautiful maps (of course with your help to found this map) for this game, i tried too many empty and ugly maps to start make them by myself . Cheers Sorry for my bad English it's not my native language
On October 13 2010 23:57 Gionight wrote: I'm not RaiNmAker or something like that sorry about this I did credit you as much as i could if you read description under the headline there you could see all the details, appreciate your loyalty about your map. I was glade to see your response , but you did't wrote your thoughts about my mod of your map (good or bad) you should try it if you have good enough PC. I think it's the one of the most beautiful maps (of course with your help to found this map) for this game, i tried too many empty and ugly maps to start make them by myself . Cheers Sorry for my bad English it's not my native language
You're right, I didn't check it out but I just opened it and you were not kidding about going to town on this map, it's turned into Alice in Wonderland! And your computer must be a beast--my editor went into lowest graphics automatically! I really like the dance party going on at the south of the 2 o'clock base, that's awesome
My only suggestion is to try and get the look you're going for with less lights and doodads, otherwise a lot less people will be able to enjoy your hard work
On September 22 2010 05:24 dimfish wrote: OneFiereceZealot: I added this little section to the OP; do you still think that?
Comparison to Lost Temple Posters have voiced concerns that the close spawns on this map are too close together, or that in cross-spawns a Terran player can easily turtle at the choke between close spawns and happily take five bases. These concerns are valid, a good map should not have any spawns too close or allow too many bases to be easily protected. However, I believe this image comparing Axis of Industry to Lost Temple shows that, on a 1-to-1 scale, the maps have similar close-spawns with plenty of space in between for army movement. Consider this: what can a tank/turret blob on Axis of Industry do that the same blob cannot at the watchtower on Lost Temple?
Your argument, while mostly accurate, contains one fallacy: it assumes that close positions on LT are balanced and a good thing. To the contrary, they turn games into 2base play max because being able to safely take a third means you've already won. Boring as anything. If I wanted to see games on small, constrictive maps I'd watch games on Incineration Zone. I would do what Blizzard did for Shakuras Plateau and make close positions unspawnable.
I would assume 2v2s would have allies on close spawn, so that's pretty much a non-issue. In 1v1, 1/3rd of the time you'll get close spawns, which might be boring, but still decently balanced. The rest of the time you'll get far/cross spawns and it'll be fine. I don't see disabling close spawns necessary (like it is on Shakuras Plateau cause LOL NAT TO NAT TANKING).
@Acritter: I don't agree that close spawns on LT are boring. Why can't you take a third base? You can put up a hidden expo early or take an island or establish map control and grab the far high-yield. If you mean that these games are shorter on average because the players are up in each other's face (relative to other spawn distances) then how is this any different than close spawns on Metalopolis (which is even closer in close spawns)?
In any case, the image comparison was primarily meant to address concerns that the spawns were close in terms of having a single choke between them and the center of the map, meaning a Terran could position all of his defenses in one spot to protect his main+nat+another main+another nat. This is not exactly trivial on LT and I'm arguing that on LT you have a watchtower to help, so its not a problem on Axis of Industry either.
@hayata2.0: Yes, 2v2 allies spawn together in the close positions, and I agree a fun part about "rectangular" 4 player maps is that there are 3 different rush distances among spawn possibilities!
The concept behind the map is pretty cool, however there are a few design flaws that make this map completely unplayable.
My biggest problem with this map is the fact a Terran player can fully siege any main from the third natural. I do mean fully siege, you can kill the hatch/nexus/cc from the low ground.
The rest if just nitpicking and personal preference.
On October 25 2010 23:55 ForayeR wrote: You have to increanse the area of the main.. terran can siege everything from the third...
On October 25 2010 23:35 TeacHMeToWiN wrote: My biggest problem with this map is the fact a Terran player can fully siege any main from the third natural. I do mean fully siege, you can kill the hatch/nexus/cc from the low ground.
Wow, that is a huge flaw, I will work out a fix right away. Thanks for posting
On October 25 2010 23:35 TeacHMeToWiN wrote: The concept behind the map is pretty cool, however there are a few design flaws that make this map completely unplayable. [...] The rest if just nitpicking and personal preference.
As long as I'm going in to make changes, what are your other comments? I'd like to hear your criticisms.
Well I like to have multiple play styles... I like to have the threat to rush, the threat to macro, and I love having a huge penalty for not being able to have map control.
Back in the 2v2 Ladder days... (SC/BW) For those that played yes I am }{º£¥TûéR and I miss IGL greatly~
The most popular maps was Temple / The Hunters / and a sprinkle of Dire Straights
I'm a huge fan of all three because each brings a completely different play style needed to dominate.
In this version of your map a player has no real incentive to maintain map control. My expansion + gold expansion is behind, so some strong turtle strats present itself and timing pushes.
Please take my criticism with a grain of salt, because I am not a map maker nor do I have concepts of how how difficult it would be to implement.
~ Fixes for 2v2 ~ I would make map slightly bigger I would move ramp in front of base (this would fix the siege issue and the keep walk times solid) I would make 3rd expands Gold (not the one in the back of base) I would add a Tower in mid, or two towers 1 bottom mid 1 top mid. (Give players some advantage for holding middle)
Downside to this? Zergs would complain they can't fast expand as easily and would be a pain in the ass to spread creep.
My favorite 2s maps to date in sc2 Tarsonis Assult Monlyth Ridge Lost Temple (wish someone would make a 2s version of this map the current version just doesn't work for 2s) Scorched Haven (If they would make it slightly harder to block choke, just a tiny bit wider)
First of all, I appreciate your opinions and thanks for taking the time to write it all down. This helps all map makers, so for everyone's custom maps you try PLEASE go write them a note if you like or don't like something!
I've got some responses for you, and for sure I'm going to fix the size of the mains to prevent siege tanks from hitting the main building.
On October 26 2010 02:42 TeacHMeToWiN wrote: Well I like to have multiple play styles... I like to have the threat to rush, the threat to macro, and I love having a huge penalty for not being able to have map control.
I'm a huge fan of all three because each brings a completely different play style needed to dominate.
I want to defend Axis of Industry on this point, because I think it can live up what you said (siege problem aside). Maybe you could tell me why you disagree?
I think this map has rush potential because, even though the rush distance is somewhat far, if you get to the space in between the teammate bases its easy to keep them cut apart. Other 2's maps generally have the team ramps very close together. Do you think this is true?
On October 26 2010 02:42 TeacHMeToWiN wrote: In this version of your map a player has no real incentive to maintain map control. My expansion + gold expansion is behind, so some strong turtle strats present itself and timing pushes.
I think you agree with me that this map has macro potential, and from your comments you think that it is too easy macro hard, because of the gold base. I'll come back to that point in just a second.
Also, I VERY VERY MUCH agree that map control should give you a big advantage! Every map I make has this in mind. On Axis of Industry I put the signature 3-gas expansions in the middle because I think if you get map control you should take the 3-gas base next to your main. With 3-gas you can upgrade a lot or get higher tech faster than with a normal expo.
So what do you do against a team that tries to turtle up with their mains, nats and the gold? I think drop play is really strong on this map, but I haven't gotten a replay or VOD of high level players trying it yet. I meant for the edge of the main to be attackable from the low ground (but obviously not the main building!) so a turtle has to have defenses at the really big choke AND in their main, where on Lost Temple ground armies cannot attack nearly as much of the main from the low ground. Also, if you notice there is a bunch of unpathable high ground all around the natural and the gold base--drops can fly in right over these bases and attack! If you deny the turtle air sight then you can literally fly up really close before they can spot it.
I think players trying to turtle up can be punished with probing attacks at the main choke, attacks on the main from low ground and drops coming at the back bases--if they have enough stuff to defend everywhere then theyre not really macroing up. The perimeter is really long, so find a hole and punish.
Do you agree? If not, drop some knowledge on me!
On October 26 2010 02:42 TeacHMeToWiN wrote: ~ Fixes for 2v2 ~ I would make map slightly bigger I would move ramp in front of base (this would fix the siege issue and the keep walk times solid) I would make 3rd expands Gold (not the one in the back of base)
I'll be honest, I'm not going to make these changes. For sure I won't make it any bigger or flip the ramps because it will become almost a different map at that point. I think I see what you're going for by switching the center expos to gold, but I hesitate on this one too. To do this I think the current gold should become blue and no rocks and the center expos become gold. It's a possibility, but I think the expos are good as is, because the rocks take time to destroy so that's one more incentive to get in the center earlier.
On October 26 2010 02:42 TeacHMeToWiN wrote: I would add a Tower in mid, or two towers 1 bottom mid 1 top mid. (Give players some advantage for holding middle)
I've discussed this issue in several other threads, it's just a personal preference of mine as a map maker. I don't like using watchtowers a lot because when they are misused they make for lazy games. I think the towers on Lost Temple are bad because they say, "Hey, just rally all units here." And you can with good vision and your units are safe and holding an important center location. This does not take skill! So the gap between good and players gets closed a bit.
On Axis of Industry I designed the center first. It's long and skinny and with no towers, because a good player should be able to out-maneuver a weaker player there. Good players should spread creep for vision and hide overlords on the little cliffs, or put a viking on patrol to spot attacks and siege up to use the gaps between the dotted cliff line as funnels, or spread the toss death ball out to prevent a flank since the center is so wide.
Do you agree that the valuable expansions are enough of an advantage for gaining map control, and that this map rewards good players by not having watch towers that make it a no-brainer where to concentrate your army? If not, I'd really like to hear your thoughts!
On October 26 2010 02:42 TeacHMeToWiN wrote: My favorite 2s maps to date in sc2 Tarsonis Assult Monlyth Ridge Lost Temple (wish someone would make a 2s version of this map the current version just doesn't work for 2s) Scorched Haven (If they would make it slightly harder to block choke, just a tiny bit wider)
This is an awesome comment, thank you! I will consider what is good about these maps when I do future designs.
On October 26 2010 04:11 dimfish wrote: I think this map has rush potential because, even though the rush distance is somewhat far, if you get to the space in between the teammate bases its easy to keep them cut apart. Other 2's maps generally have the team ramps very close together. Do you think this is true?
Nope, the two's maps you speak of (those that share a base) I have thumbed down for a reason. They are terrible maps and if you look at the majority of teams, its pretty clear that they have those maps thumbs down too.
The worst 2s maps in the blizzard pool. Discord IV Twilight Fort War Zone
The Exception to this for me is High Orbit, because of all the entrances into the base... this prevents 100% guaranteed macro-fest game.
I hope that your map will be enjoyable, I have yet to be able to find a competitive team to play on it. At the moment I am just theory-crafting which is no means as good as testing it out.
On October 26 2010 04:11 dimfish wrote: I think you agree with me that this map has macro potential, and from your comments you think that it is too easy macro hard, because of the gold base. I'll come back to that point in just a second.
Also, I VERY VERY MUCH agree that map control should give you a big advantage! Every map I make has this in mind. On Axis of Industry I put the signature 3-gas expansions in the middle because I think if you get map control you should take the 3-gas base next to your main. With 3-gas you can upgrade a lot or get higher tech faster than with a normal expo.
So what do you do against a team that tries to turtle up with their mains, nats and the gold? I think drop play is really strong on this map, but I haven't gotten a replay or VOD of high level players trying it yet. I meant for the edge of the main to be attackable from the low ground (but obviously not the main building!) so a turtle has to have defenses at the really big choke AND in their main, where on Lost Temple ground armies cannot attack nearly as much of the main from the low ground. Also, if you notice there is a bunch of unpathable high ground all around the natural and the gold base--drops can fly in right over these bases and attack! If you deny the turtle air sight then you can literally fly up really close before they can spot it.
I think players trying to turtle up can be punished with probing attacks at the main choke, attacks on the main from low ground and drops coming at the back bases--if they have enough stuff to defend everywhere then theyre not really macroing up. The perimeter is really long, so find a hole and punish.
Do you agree? If not, drop some knowledge on me!
2s Drop play is rarely seen, in my last 100 games I don't think I've seen a heavy drop game more then once or twice. Its just not as effective in 2s. To much tech to do early, you would leave yourself open once again to a timing push and gg... you just lost with a cool medivac to fly you around in!
Your comparison to temple is flawed. Each player is responsible for defending a choke. Common chokes is where the problem is.
On temple if you turtle... We get map control, we deny expansions by using cliffs etc. Moving both our armies as one... we expand, we get more resources/units and we win. Your armies are split and you pay a huge price for turtling.
On a map like this.
Player 1 makes cannons Player 2 makes a few zlings and powers 3 hatch.
If you can't crack it... GG, Protoss then techs and zerg is just to big by the time you can land drops etc...
Just not my cup of tea~ I had a counter to this. Build a barracks on 9 Build a 2nd Barracks on 11 At the same time drop a Depo Get an Orbital CC Then pump marines and hit w/ early banelings.
GG people who attempt to turtle.
Blizzard took this option away from me.
On October 26 2010 04:11 dimfish wrote: I'll be honest, I'm not going to make these changes. For sure I won't make it any bigger or flip the ramps because it will become almost a different map at that point. I think I see what you're going for by switching the center expos to gold, but I hesitate on this one too. To do this I think the current gold should become blue and no rocks and the center expos become gold. It's a possibility, but I think the expos are good as is, because the rocks take time to destroy so that's one more incentive to get in the center earlier.
Thank you for the honesty maybe you can make a different map to incorporate these ideas! =P
On October 26 2010 04:11 dimfish wrote: Do you agree that the valuable expansions are enough of an advantage for gaining map control, and that this map rewards good players by not having watch towers that make it a no-brainer where to concentrate your army? If not, I'd really like to hear your thoughts!
Your logic is that gas is important? You are right it is important, however in 2s its a non factor. If I really need more gas I would drop another expand and just use it for more gas. If I control middle I can do this already. The Bonus of a 3rd gas is so painful I'm really at a loss for words on this one.
Reason this is true for competitive 2s not 1s is that the majority of your army is going be tier 1 and tier 1 doesn't require gas or minimal gas.
If you watch most high level 2s games, people don't even take both gas early. If they do, they will surely leave them self wide open to a double timing push. Since you can scout and see double gas, you know something is up.
Your map give no reason to control anything other then your common choke outside your base.
Just wait until you want to push and push.
That is my problem with it.
Your map needs to be like an Oreo cookie... good filling in the middle!!
dimfish has updated the VISTA Axis of Industry R map to discourage tank siege from 3rd expansion as highlighted by TeachMeToWin, which is available in the US and SEA server
I accept your view that 3-gas expo is not as strong an incentive in 2v2 as it is in 1v1, on the basis that high level 2v2 play stays at the lower tiers longer. And that drop play is rare for the same low-tech reason.
But let me show you something about the "shared choke" of Axis of Industry--it's much bigger than many people think. What I did was run the maps you think are the best in the 2v2 ladder pool through the map analyzer and then I used the GIMP (open source PhotoShop, basically) with its measurement tool to figure out how wide the chokes are for different maps, in terms of map cells (a barracks is 3x3 in map cells).
With me so far? Let's see how large the chokes of different maps are:
Scorched Haven You said Scorched Haven was pretty good, but you wished the shared choke was a little wider.
As you can see, the shared choke is 16 map cells wide. You can count for yourself because this choke is vertical so its easy. For the diagonal chokes on other maps the GIMP's measurement tool figures it out, you just drag from one point to another in an image and it measures. Anyway, let's give Scorched Haven a 2v2 shared choke rating of a "B."
Tarsonis Assault Next up, the one you listed first, and I'll spoil it, it probably has the hugest shared choke of 2v2.
So if you try to defend just past your ramps the choke is a whopping 33.5 map cells wide, and if you tried to defend at the forward ramp, which is an awkward position but let's pretend you went for it, it's still 17.5 map cells wide, so wider than Scorched Haven. Let's say this map gets a stellar A+ for shared choke.
Now let's look at maps that fall somewhere in between.
Monlyth Ridge
This map has a choke 29 map cells from ramp to ramp (outer edges) but also there is just a big open field out there for enemy armies to mass up and smash into your defenses.
This map's choke is wide and the enemy has plenty of room to move on you. Let's give it an A (On Tarsonis assault the forward ramp coming down into the shared choke is so clever, it gets the A+).
Lost Temple
Lost Temple is harder to turtle on. If you and your teammate try to turtle at your naturals, the chokes are only 9 map cells across, but you're disconnected, as you are if you both wall-in at your main ramps on any map.
If you tried to link up and defend across the center then its 16 or so map cells on either side, so a perimeter 32 map cells long. I think this map is at least a B and probably B+/A- in terms of being difficult for a 2v2 team to just turtle themselves in with the gold expo, and being linked to another so they can't be divided by ground forces.
Now let's look at my map. Here's a quick pic of the actual map for reference:
Notice in particular those LoS blockers that poke out into the shared choke, and recall LoS blockers are unbuildable so you cannot completely wall off through them. So how wide are those areas?
If you defend back at your natural the situation is like Lost Temple--the choke is only about 9 cells wide but you are divided from your teammate, and much less safe. If you try to defend next to the chasm in between your bases, the chokes are 13.5 map cells on either side. That's 27 total, which is close to Monlyth Ridge and about the average between the tighter and wider chokes shown on Tarsonis Assault. If you tried to set up a little further across the space very near the center its a long 29.5 map cells.
So, what do you think? Is Axis of Industry as wide in the shared chokes as the good 2v2 ladder maps?
Closing Comments
Axis of Industry was designed with 1v1 in mind first, but I think it is still very good for 2v2. Your comments have been really enlightening, though, and I may do a 2v2 specific map soon, like you said, with the fundamental differences in mind.
Can you point me to high-level 2v2 replays or VODs? I watch a lot of 1v1 events but don't really know what awesome 2v2 competitions are out there!
I'll try to scoop you up some of our replays vs other top teams...
I have a few saved PM me your email and I'll shoot you them over. As I said in my previous post, I have yet to field a game on this map... at a competitive level. I always test maps before I rule them out. Unless its something like Twilight Fortress then I might as well go play war2 and play friends.pud
We have some games lined up for this weekend and next on your map I will let you know how they turn out as well.