hey guys, i made a new map. pretty standard stuff. layout work is mostly mine with small fixes from lefix. textures mostly from lefix with fixes from me. doodad work mostly from me with help from lefix, funcmode and johanaz. The Layout is Influenced by Grand Line SE. It doesnt really look like that anymore but the middle highground is still there. I chose MarSara Tileset because it really easy on the eye and has a clear lightning for every race.
Samro and lefix are responsible for the questionable rock decision. (i want to point that out^^)
The only thing I don't like is the way the watchtowers work. They provide vision of every attack path and thus are a too useful tool for mapcontrol. There should be paths outside of their vision range. Maybe move them a bit closer to the middle of the map?
This is amazing. It's like Bardiche but the contrast between openness and chokes is a lot more standard and acceptable. You can split the map in whichever direction you chose because of the options for a third. I'm looking forward for some great games going down on this!
My only problem is I see a 3rd being far too hard to take for protoss especially and even terran a bit (until they get a pfort up). No matter which one you take you'll have to spread yourself out pretty thin. It'll also be really rough because there are so many flanking paths.
On September 20 2011 10:05 FlaShFTW wrote: wat a beautiful map... GRAND LINE FTW!!! lmao sc2 should just convert sc bw maps to sc2.
Yeah they knew what the fuck was up in BW tbh. So many concepts deserve to be converted (pretty much all of them need to be modified somewhat to fit SC2, but the concepts themselves are generally awesome).
Very nice. I like a lot, especially how the map can be split very nicely either way a player expands to his third.
Right now I think it is possible as others have said that the third base spreads Protoss out too far in PvZ. The distance is quite long- longer than most Blizzard maps. But it's not any longer than a lot of competitive maps like TalDarim and Crossfire. I think testing is needed to determine any imbalance.
I definitely think the rocks seem unnecessary at the fourth. It is pretty easy to defend already; removing the rocks would allow for more harass. If it is too hard to hold, I think it it could be moved a little bit closer to the highground third. Or you could rework it to be a "dead-end" expansion which would work nicely here.
A picture says 1000 words, and that's at least how many words I would use to explain these two pictures, so just study them instead so I don't have to ^^ + Show Spoiler [labeled pictures] +
I tried to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each possible 3rd base (including how easy it is to take a 4th after you do). There's actually a really long distance between the two potential thirds, which means that for (particularly protoss) once you take one you won't wanna take the other til the late game (compounded by the fact that the watch tower provides a nice launching pad to split them in two). Indeed, the one against the main is in most cases the worse of the two choices (btw I forgot to mark how the other one has high air vulnerability). This is largely due to the orientation of the watch towers (and their surrounding structures) and the difficulty of taking a fourth.
In terms of balance I am satisfied, but despite the number of differences I noted in the possible thirds, the gameplay seems surprisingly boring/"standard". I think you could get faar more creative.
Quite frankly the "grand line" central high ground thing seems to fit a 4-player mirror map sooo much more. So much
On September 20 2011 10:05 FlaShFTW wrote: wat a beautiful map... GRAND LINE FTW!!! lmao sc2 should just convert sc bw maps to sc2.
Yeah they knew what the fuck was up in BW tbh. So many concepts deserve to be converted (pretty much all of them need to be modified somewhat to fit SC2, but the concepts themselves are generally awesome).
Continuing on this, one thing they seemed to understand and implement a lot is something I like to call 'Micro Potential"; I think monitor calls it "wasted space". Basically it has to do with what % of the map that is pathable. This might sound a little silly and incomplete (and if it does, trust me I know what you mean), but this is the only way I know how to say it:
More "void" space on the map = Less micro potential. Basically, you do not want to reduce micro potential too much. It took me a long time to really understand what this means, but I guarantee you if you go back and look at a lot of BW maps you will notice a simple pattern: a high % of the map is pathable, high micro potential.
Yes, you do want plenty of pathing restriction for air units to micro on too. And just the right amount of chokes. But a high % of pathing is important.
Take a look at what % of terrain is pathable on this map vs what % is pathable on BW's Grand Line: + Show Spoiler +
There is soo much air space around the map (right?). Let's see what happens when you get rid of as much as possible: + Show Spoiler +
There's still a lot of unpathable terrain. Well the structure of the map is kind of a stretched hexagon (been there multiple times). You can't really tilt it 45 degrees to fit it into a rectangle very well without having the same problem. But what you can do is make a line of air pathing blockers (and decorate it with mountains or something to visually highlight the air pathing block line). This isn't amazingly necessary, but something to consider: + Show Spoiler +
I used to say a lot that I don't like edge-of-map vulnerability (every base on grand line has edge-of-map vulnerability btw). What I mean when I say that now is that most bases that do have edge-of-map vulnerability should also have air or cliff vulnerability (or relatively high openness or plenty paths into it). I also mean(t) that I just like most maps to have at least one(two) bases with no edge of map vulnerability.
That all actually ties into this: I'm not really a fan of how so many bases in SC2 maps are so incredibly rounded! What I mean is that they're often kind of like peninsulas with air space on sorta 3 different sides (or a lot on 2 sides). And the minerals are like 2-4 spaces from the edge (the roundness of the terrain is there almost exclusively to wrap around the minerals like this). And each base past the main has very little room in it past the room for minerals and the CC (granted you do want to carefully place the CC spot in relation to the chokes of the base for the purposes of PF's, creep, and defend-harassment distance from choke). WE NEED TO STOP MAKING EVERY BASE LIKE THIS! Yes, in general just barely most bases should be roughly like this; but it's possible to get so much more creative with individual base structure.
Anyways, solid map. The best thing about it IMO is how there is a possible third against your main but you managed to make another equidistant third base more viable. It just doesn't seem to have enough style or strong concept given the map is so incredibly mirror-like even though it's rotational.
In general I agree to a certain extent with Barrin's conclusion that this lacks the fun-factor, but not any more than a lot of other maps...
However I really disagree with his theoretical analysis of the 3rds, at least for PvZ. I would take the against-main 3rd 90% of the time. Why? You get a tower. You can park your army equidistant between nat choke and 3rd, while strongarming tower control with your nearby army. This feels so much safer than going ccw, lacking a tower, having to wall, and still feeling pulled between two locations (like Tal Darim x10). Additionally, taking the against-main 3rd sets you up for a much nicer 4th, almost automatic once the game gets to that point.
In light of this, the map seems like a top vs bottom game once you get beyond 15 minutes / 2base. This leaves the 5th base at the equator on either side sort of dangling. (It might have been a 3rd but that tower is so desirable personally I doubt it will be used that way very often in "standard" games.) Which way do those 5th bases get split up once the map is top vs bottom? Imo, this makes the map prone to a late game expansion / production facility base trade dynamic.
Compare to Tal Darim (for a different reason than before). That map can also see pretty harsh expo trades, but thats because players arent good enough to control space well like, say, on fighting spirit in BW. The map can be split cleanly in two different directions (4 player rotational hmmm) and as long as both players stay on top of their shit, you aren't forced into ugly counterattacks whenever the opposition pushes you, which I feel like is inevitable once someone is taking a 5th here. This is a style choice though, to be clear I'm not condemning at all. ^^
However I really disagree with his theoretical analysis of the 3rds, at least for PvZ. I would take the against-main 3rd 90% of the time. Why? You get a tower. You can park your army equidistant between nat choke and 3rd, while strongarming tower control with your nearby army. This feels so much safer than going ccw, lacking a tower, having to wall, and still feeling pulled between two locations (like Tal Darim x10). Additionally, taking the against-main 3rd sets you up for a much nicer 4th, almost automatic once the game gets to that point.
Hmm disagree still :X I mean it's not bad at all but 30-40% of situations at most IMO
Probably the biggest immediate difference between those two thirds is the level of openness; the one against the main is a LOT more open (this alone makes it a reasonable 3rd for zerg most of the time).
While I agree that the watch tower is (immediately) stronger on that third than the other, keep in mind that watch towers can also be used against you. That in combination with the fact that the against-main base is on low ground (attack path on high ground - the watch tower no less) and the other third is on high ground (attack path on low ground), and combination with the openness, it makes it a much harder third to hold.
However, perhaps if the thirds are as hard to take as monitor claims, then you will be on 2 bases for a relatively long(er) time, giving you the army strength needed to deal with the openness of the against-main third (obviously bigger armies can deal with open spaces better, and while zerg tends to like open space a little more it actually scales fairly well between the races (to a point - which this map does not cross)).
I still think ccw fourth is easier to hold than the cw fourth (depending on your path). Again I point to this image: + Show Spoiler +
Attention: green line; this gives a fairly clean baseline tbh. The rocks "protect" the ccw 4th, while the rocks make the other 4th harder to take. There is only 1 attack facing the enemy to the ccw fourth, while there are 2 facing the enemy on the other 4th.
While the watch tower can protect the against-main third easier than the other third, on 4-base situations the ccw watch tower can be more useful than the other way.
Furthermore, expanding ccw kind of gets rid of the problem of an "impossible fifth" ("winner's base"). What I mean is that your against-main base is always going to be "yours". That in combination with the fact that the ccw expansion pattern (up to the 4th) is viable means that if you do expand ccw you can sort of hold on to 5 bases.
But that's not actually true in TvZ, for either T or Z (a fatal flaw). I agree that the end game bases are too close to each other (creating the "winner's expansions" effect). To be blunt be a little more like Odyssey ^^ + Show Spoiler +
4-player format (more expansions) would help this a lot on this map IMO.
On September 20 2011 16:49 Barrin wrote: That all actually ties into this: I'm not really a fan of how so many bases in SC2 maps are so incredibly rounded! What I mean is that they're often kind of like peninsulas with air space on sorta 3 different sides (or a lot on 2 sides). And the minerals are like 2-4 spaces from the edge (the roundness of the terrain is there almost exclusively to wrap around the minerals like this). And each base past the main has very little room in it past the room for minerals and the CC (granted you do want to carefully place the CC spot in relation to the chokes of the base for the purposes of PF's, creep, and defend-harassment distance from choke). WE NEED TO STOP MAKING EVERY BASE LIKE THIS! Yes, in general just barely most bases should be roughly like this; but it's possible to get so much more creative with individual base structure.
quoted for truth!
On September 20 2011 12:58 monitor wrote: I definitely think the rocks seem unnecessary at the fourth. It is pretty easy to defend already; removing the rocks would allow for more harass. If it is too hard to hold, I think it it could be moved a little bit closer to the highground third. Or you could rework it to be a "dead-end" expansion which would work nicely here.
i understand that there is an anti-symathy against rocks and i would say leave them out whereever you can. you could leave them away here easily. it is safe enough as you state. for me it is not about defensive here, but taking down the rocks as an attacker. to have the extra path, to be able to harass, to take the bridge base as a fourth. the ccw fourth is quite a bit further away. so i think the rocks here are a good decision.
rocks that are not only in your way, but open up new path that are optional are something positiv in my opinion and hopefully entertaining. we need an emancipation movement for rocks really
On September 21 2011 02:22 Barrin wrote: I agree that the end game bases are too close to each other (creating the "winner's expansions" effect). To be blunt be a little more like Odyssey ^^ + Show Spoiler +
4-player format (more expansions) would help this a lot on this map IMO.
i think ody is the wrong example here. i understand that your last base should be in reasonable distance. i remember when this was discussed regarding lefix's map back then. but ody is a strict one-expansion-pattern map, while iron allows expansion in both directions. something i like alot, but it creates difficulties with the last base, sure. possibly you would go in one direction and then swing back to the other to get your last base. also your expansions (in general) could be used to force the other player to take another fifth than he wanted first (something i have seen on cascade).
4player format is an interesting decision. could you elaborate on how you wopuld do this?