|
[M] (2) Ashes by Samro 0.2 (EU)
Overview + Show Spoiler +
Information Macro oriented 2-spawn map with twelve regular bases with two watchtowers. Size is 152x128. + Show Spoiler +Features: close by third with mineral blocked backdoor / FFE into third as alternative nat / one creep tumor for each next base up to the fourth base.
Ashes is a bit an experimental approach, especially with the highround base close by.
Comment + Show Spoiler +As I pointed out Ashes is a bit an experimental approach, especially with the highround base as an alternative natural expansions. These are specifically usefull to FFE into, because the choke is rather wide (four gates). In a way this map is a bit oriented towards having three bases in close proximity and it almost works a bit like an actual inbase nat with a backdoor. That backdoor is blocked with losb, so no warpin here. The main is quite small really, but the close by highround gives lots of space for building. Partly this has to do with the layout and how compact the bases are - possibly really bad, but dear terrans, build whereever you find space tbh: creating abit more space will not be a real problem at all and can be done later. A note on the way i developed this map. In an earlier version the base that now is a regular nat was only used as a third, also rotated to the highround areas ccw of it. so the highround was the only nat, but because this creates some issues with the first expansion, I went away from this and made the highround an optional nat. The tileset is custom with custom lighting like in all my maps. It is inspired by the textures used in the sc:bw map Outsider + Show Spoiler +. There is a gradient from dirt-purple-red on the lowground to a grey on highrounds with some orange spots against light pink fog.
Thank you + Show Spoiler + TPW for helping with theorycrafting backdoor, mineralblock, warpins, chokesize Barrin for analyzing this map for in an earlier stage and prooving that there is no CS, although it seemed like it - with the current setup this is not an issue, but nevertheless you "fueled my anger" regarding the fruitless CS discussions Monitor, dezi and Johanaz for making me take out the half base.
Images + Show Spoiler +main and nat highround third and alternative nat Fourth base with mineral block leading into third/alt nat Centre with towers and rocks blocking the central path that runs directly from nat to nat. Fifth base up in the NW corner another late base
Analyzer + Show Spoiler +
Changelog + Show Spoiler +0.1 first version published 0.2 deleted half base 0.3 doodad misplacements adjusted 0.4 added doodads on highround ledge to prevent siegtanks jitting mineral block
|
your Country52795 Posts
Hmmm, isn't the main base a bit small?
|
It's great but... all of your maps have too many bases. It just can't become a really competitive map imo because of how oversaturated the map is. Too many bases takes away from map control, expanding choices (because there are so many it's almost meaningless), and balance because mass expanding is ridiculously powerful. Honestly I think all of your maps could be a lot better if you limited them to 10-12 expos total.
|
United States9647 Posts
Main looks really small. Protoss can't forge fe
I feel that everything is a bit too chokey and there are just too many bases clustered everywhere. Maybe drop one of the bases and try to space things out more?
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Why can't Protoss FFE? Explain, i'm waiting here giggling.
@monitor - we (me and Johanaz) also pointed out that Sam just could scratch those half bases. Would lower the overall amount to 12 which is within the limits.
Also: pics are often misleading - you all should know this. I'm myself still often surprised how big a map turns out ingame compared to withing the editor / on a pic.
|
On February 20 2012 06:59 monitor wrote: It's great but... all of your maps have too many bases. It just can't become a really competitive map imo because of how oversaturated the map is. Too many bases takes away from map control, expanding choices (because there are so many it's almost meaningless), and balance because mass expanding is ridiculously powerful. Honestly I think all of your maps could be a lot better if you limited them to 10-12 expos total.
your argument of oversaturation taking away the meaning of choices is not completly true, because the 11 and 12 base are just quite a bit away. anyway, dezi wanted me to change that, too. so please look at the map as if the half rich base was gone. I add credits to monitor and images later
On February 20 2012 07:00 FlaShFTW wrote:Main looks really small. Protoss can't forge fe I feel that everything is a bit too chokey and there are just too many bases clustered everywhere. Maybe drop one of the bases and try to space things out more?
you are the second person complaining about small mains... also protoss actually can FFE. Why not read my comments? Spacing is just fine btw.
edit: Map is now 0.2 and without a half base on lowground. updated OP, too with new screenshots + analyzer images.
|
Looks very interesting, i like the experimentation. As monitor already pointed out theres a lot of expansions, i would've cut the half base on the low ground. Also it's quite easy to turtle on 3 bases (depending on the minerals in the mineral block), personally i would've made the third a half base or flipped the minerals facing the middle.
Edit: forgot to mention that it's very pretty.
|
I really like this map. It seems interesting, but also should play very well for anything standard while allowing room for experimentation. I'm wondering, why the losb on the back door instead of putting it on the ramp, or moving the ramp to that point? And why minerals instead of rocks?
I don't really like the half base. It seems in the way and unnecessary, and I'm not a fan of them in general.
Love the aesthetics overall. I think those decals are a little hard on the eyes, though. The geysers seems bit out of place, and maybe the destructible rocks, too. I love light fog, it really makes a map nice to play on, though it might be a little thick on the low ground. The ash textures look great.
|
|
I really like it overall, but isn´t the nat siegable from that highground?
|
On February 20 2012 19:31 Aunvilgod wrote: I really like it overall, but isn´t the nat siegable from that highground?
i was going to ask, how you dare assume such thing - but indeed there was some super tight spot that reached one mineral block. this appeared due to deleting doodads and cleaning pathing in some areas. fixed already.
thank you, mister eagle eye!
+ Show Spoiler [fixed] + 0.4 added doodads on highround ledge to prevent siegtanks jitting mineral block
changes not represented in analyzer images, overview or screenshots as they are not really visible.
|
On February 20 2012 06:59 monitor wrote: It's great but... all of your maps have too many bases. It just can't become a really competitive map imo because of how oversaturated the map is. Too many bases takes away from map control, expanding choices (because there are so many it's almost meaningless), and balance because mass expanding is ridiculously powerful. Honestly I think all of your maps could be a lot better if you limited them to 10-12 expos total.
On February 20 2012 07:06 dezi wrote:
@monitor - we (me and Johanaz) also pointed out that Sam just could scratch those half bases. Would lower the overall amount to 12 which is within the limits. @monitor - we (me and Johanaz) also pointed out that Sam just could scratch those half bases. Would lower the overall amount to 12 which is within the limits.
i wanted to respond to this, or rahter, start a discussion on this tpoic, but I will do it in Sam's new 4p isntead, cya there
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313570#9
As for the map itself - I like how it has evolved from the nat being a third / optional nat farther from main -> a more standard main - nat third setup although still unique.
|
On February 20 2012 07:06 dezi wrote: Why can't Protoss FFE? Explain, i'm waiting here giggling.
@monitor - we (me and Johanaz) also pointed out that Sam just could scratch those half bases. Would lower the overall amount to 12 which is within the limits.
Also: pics are often misleading - you all should know this. I'm myself still often surprised how big a map turns out ingame compared to withing the editor / on a pic.
Just look at the choke point at the natural... you can FFE but be prepared to die to anyone who can reconise how much damage roaches can do to you/speedling run-bys... It's bad for FFE because you either leave the ramp to your main badly defended, or you leave your expo badly defended.. Or you over wall/cannon which will just prompt the zerg to out macro you with ease... I don't think that this is necessarilly a bad thing because so many tosses need to learn how to 1 gate or 3 gate expand v zerg... But all in all, I don't think that this is "giggle-worthy" ;o...
The maps looks pretty good, but I think it would be better to eliminate some of the peripheral expansions and possibly have 2 expansions (1 per side) somewhere in the middle... Though you would have to rework the layout a bit because the middle already looks a little bit too crammed (even though there are more compact maps out there). Actually I don't know how compact this map actually is because you haven't stated the official size of the thing . So maybe the middle is fine, but I still think it's a bit boring to have expos around the edges and a kind of "arena" for the middle... Looks like Terrans could well on this; grabbing a huge positional advantage to then abuse dropships along the sides ;o..
|
On February 20 2012 21:24 MyTHicaL wrote:The maps looks pretty good, but I think it would be better to eliminate some of the peripheral expansions and possibly have 2 expansions (1 per side) somewhere in the middle... Though you would have to rework the layout a bit because the middle already looks a little bit too crammed (though there are more compact maps out there). Actually I don't know how compact this map actually is because you haven't stated the official size of the thing . So maybe the middle is fine, but I still think it's a bit boring to have expos around the edges and a kind of "arena" for the middle... Looks like Terrans could well on this; grabbing a huge positional advantage to then abuse dropships along the sides ;o..
If you have the chance please give it a try. The map is bigger ingame than it appears. Size is 152x128. After I took out the rich half base the spacing works really well. Do not feel to sure for the terrans.
On February 20 2012 21:24 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 07:06 dezi wrote: Why can't Protoss FFE? Explain, i'm waiting here giggling.
@monitor - we (me and Johanaz) also pointed out that Sam just could scratch those half bases. Would lower the overall amount to 12 which is within the limits.
Also: pics are often misleading - you all should know this. I'm myself still often surprised how big a map turns out ingame compared to withing the editor / on a pic. Just look at the choke point at the natural... you can FFE but be prepared to die to anyone who can reconise how much damage roaches can do to you/speedling run-bys... It's bad for FFE because you either leave the ramp to your main badly defended, or you leave your expo badly defended.. Or you over wall/cannon which will just prompt the zerg to out macro you with ease... I don't think that this is necessarilly a bad thing because so many tosses need to learn how to 1 gate or 3 gate expand v zerg... But all in all, I don't think that this is "giggle-worthy" ;o...
did you consider to put forge, gateway, cannon (and pylon a bit behind) in between main and highround third? Then your main and highround nat is completly walled-in. where is that runby going to happen?
|
did you consider to put forge, gateway, cannon (and pylon a bit behind) in between main and highround third? Then your main and highround nat is completly walled-in. where is that runby going to happen?
I litterally didn't even consider taking that expansion with FFE since it has a backdoor ;o. Hmmm I'll go try to play some pub games on it if anyone will join; I can't really make any arguments since I don't even know how many minerals you stuck down at that backdoor... I'm tired so the old brain ain't fonctioning as well as it should be .
And if you're not suggesting taking your 3rd as your FE, this type of walling off would leave your natural completely exposed to roach agression..
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On February 20 2012 21:41 Samro225am wrote: did you consider to put forge, gateway, cannon (and pylon a bit behind) in between main and highround third? Then your main and highround nat is completly walled-in. where is that runby going to happen?
Just what i would ask. As P you would never take that low base as your nat. You can just perfectly wall between the highground (which also gives an advanced defensive position later on (Stalkers / ...).
Little drawback: you have to keep a probe nearby to further increase the wall and ofc. have to scout properly (like on any other 2P map). It's harder for a T there (because the distance SCVs have to travel is quite huge - but i didn't have seen a P repairing stuff ... yet. Once u got your first cannon done what are u afraid of? If you let them mine that backdoor - your fault (and bringing drones their hurts his eco, too).
If he busts you - well that's often GG on any other map too - i agree that here it might be harder to fall back (or decide to which base to fall back). But that's the drawback for having 3 bases in a fortress style layout.
|
Meh I still feel awkward about it.. Also the 2 chokes arent perfectly symmetrical by a couple of pixels ;o... I noticed this by pylon/forge placement possibilities.
Also I'd love to attempt to create a zerg easy win build vs this kind of thing; I'm certain that it's possible. Something simple like a speedling build where you pull 4... drones to mine 1 patch then 3 after that to break through... Kind of starting to sound a little bit economically riskier but still, I'm sure that it can be done ;O.
|
|
To be clear I didn't (mean to) say that it has no CS. I don't think I've ever seen a map that has no CS at all. But it is well under "50%" (like most good maps) which is basically what you could call "no CS" in lay terms.
I really like the whole "big map, lots of bases with lots of entrances" thing. The relative ease of 3-base almost single-handedly negates any CS. And yet as the game goes on there is plenty of reason to move your army out into the map to secure map control... not in the "tight" low-cs SC2 style, but more in the BW style with far more ground to cover (yet in a low-CS way). This probably isn't what you intended to do, as it is a kinda choppy, but I really think this is the next stage of mapmaking evolution.
The high(mid) ground structures leading from the nat into the center of the map create an excellent pivot point for interesting army positioning gameplay.
As already said privately, I am very happy/etc. that people (perhaps largely you) are trying to "break" the CS theory so to speak. Finding all of it's nooks, crannies, and counteracting mechanics and exploit and utilize them and stuff like that.
|
You can blink to main from natural, and from 4th to natural. This also allows very annoying warp ins.->PvP broken, PvX very annoying. Both naturals are too far away from main choke, making defending natural in zvz impossible, and in zvt early helions become OP ->ZvZ broken, ZvT very annoying. Defending 4 bases at same time very hard. Every match up very annoying. So many attack patchs, so open. Zerg over powered.
|
|
|
|