wrl Profile Joined April 2011 United States 209 Posts Last Edited: 2012-02-09 22:30:05 #1



ODIN



Author: wrl

Map bounds: 144x124

Nat-nat rush distance: 141, ~132 with rocks down.

Available: EU (out of date), NA



Aesthetic Theme: A space station refining frozen gas from an asteroid.

Aesthetic Approach: I was inspired by the work of Lefix and Funcmode in the aesthetic approach. I wanted a very clean, almost minimalist look for most of the pathable terrain with a focus on lines, patterns, and a clear distinction between cliff levels. (Do not play this map on lowest settings, it will look like garbage)

Aesthetic Details:

Castanar Small Tiles

Castanar Tiles

Castanar Tiles Light (Custom texture)

Castanar Grid

Castanar Rock

Niflheim Ice Smooth (Specularity enhanced)

Niflheim Ice Frosty (Specularity enhanced)

Castanar Organic Cliffs

Braxis Alpha Manmade Cliffs (Custom textures)

Castanar Lighting (Slightly edited)



Latest Updates:

2/9/2012:

Main middle area significantly opened up

Aesthetic enhancements to mains

Slight terrain adjustments to fix a bug with pathing at the low-ground third

Decal changes to fix artifacting bug at low resolutions.



Layout Approach: I felt that there weren't enough solid reflective symmetry maps floating around at the time and I wanted to make one with a fairly simple layout that lended itself to both macro and aggressive playstyles. There are a lot of attack paths to abuse as well as a lot of air vulnerability, so having map awareness is key to defending your base. This was mostly just an aesthetic experiment and a result the layout isn't necessarily groundbreaking, but should play fairly well regardless.



Overview, click for big:







Analyzer

+ Show Spoiler +





Detail shots, click for big:

+ Show Spoiler +



















Archvile's opinion of my map:

+ Show Spoiler + A space station refining frozen gas from an asteroid.I was inspired by the work of Lefix and Funcmode in the aesthetic approach. I wanted a very clean, almost minimalist look for most of the pathable terrain with a focus on lines, patterns, and a clear distinction between cliff levels. (Do not play this map on lowest settings, it will look like garbage)Castanar Small TilesCastanar TilesCastanar Tiles Light (Custom texture)Castanar GridCastanar RockNiflheim Ice Smooth (Specularity enhanced)Niflheim Ice Frosty (Specularity enhanced)Castanar Organic CliffsBraxis Alpha Manmade Cliffs (Custom textures)Castanar Lighting (Slightly edited)2/9/2012:Main middle area significantly opened upAesthetic enhancements to mainsSlight terrain adjustments to fix a bug with pathing at the low-ground thirdDecal changes to fix artifacting bug at low resolutions.I felt that there weren't enough solid reflective symmetry maps floating around at the time and I wanted to make one with a fairly simple layout that lended itself to both macro and aggressive playstyles. There are a lot of attack paths to abuse as well as a lot of air vulnerability, so having map awareness is key to defending your base. This was mostly just an aesthetic experiment and a result the layout isn't necessarily groundbreaking, but should play fairly well regardless.Archvile's opinion of my map: It's funny; I dream a lot, but I'm not a very good sleeper.

Duvon Profile Joined October 2011 Sweden 923 Posts #2 Indeed, Lion King it is.

Concern: Xel'naga coverage of attack routes. Range pic? Nothing is impossible, only some things for some people.

wrl Profile Joined April 2011 United States 209 Posts #3 On February 08 2012 05:56 Duvon wrote:

Indeed, Lion King it is.

Concern: Xel'naga coverage of attack routes. Range pic?



You can avoid all tower vision going along the outer edges. I've added an analyzer shot to OP. You can avoid all tower vision going along the outer edges. I've added an analyzer shot to OP. It's funny; I dream a lot, but I'm not a very good sleeper.

MachineGunPanda Profile Joined December 2011 Sweden 14 Posts #4 This map seems really interesting. I will have to play it to get a feel for it though. A question, would you be totally against the idea to actually remove the Xel'naga towers completely from the map? Thus creating a more suspenseful aspect and scout necessity for the map?

NullCurrent Profile Joined November 2010 Sweden 245 Posts #5 Now uploaded on EU too. The Planetary Workshop - TPW - Mapmaking Team

wrl Profile Joined April 2011 United States 209 Posts #6 On February 08 2012 06:18 MachineGunPanda wrote:

This map seems really interesting. I will have to play it to get a feel for it though. A question, would you be totally against the idea to actually remove the Xel'naga towers completely from the map? Thus creating a more suspenseful aspect and scout necessity for the map?



But then it wouldn't look like a face on the minimap anymore!!



In response, though, the tower can't see the outside-most path or the direct flight path so ultimately it will only fool you in to a false sense of security. The purpose of the tower is to assist in defending your half of the map from the high ground when you are on 4-6 bases. But then it wouldn't look like a face on the minimap anymore!!In response, though, the tower can't see the outside-most path or the direct flight path so ultimately it will only fool you in to a false sense of security. The purpose of the tower is to assist in defending your half of the map from the high ground when you are on 4-6 bases. It's funny; I dream a lot, but I'm not a very good sleeper.

Barrin Profile Blog Joined May 2010 United States 4998 Posts Last Edited: 2012-02-07 21:44:24 #7



Plenty of air space in the right places? check

Harassable nat? check

Multiple third choices? check

A very open, longer ground distance third? check

A single-entrance, short air distance third? check

Half-bases in middle to potentially shorten attack distance? check

A base with two entrances, one essentially covered by a previous base, the other leading directly into the center? check

Each player gets a watch tower? check

Proper ground vs air duality? check

Low CS? check

Overall features creating a unique style for an otherwise old category? check.



(btw I don't really do a checklist like this to see if I like a map lol, just pointing out things I like that properly add to it's concept)



--



+ Show Spoiler +



This area should be far more open IMO. Baller. This is a proper air vertical axis reflection symmetry map.Plenty of air space in the right places? checkHarassable nat? checkMultiple third choices? checkA very open, longer ground distance third? checkA single-entrance, short air distance third? checkHalf-bases in middle to potentially shorten attack distance? checkA base with two entrances, one essentially covered by a previous base, the other leading directly into the center? checkEach player gets a watch tower? checkProper ground vs air duality? checkLow CS? checkOverall features creating a unique style for an otherwise old category? check.(btw I don't really do a checklist like this to see if I like a map lol, just pointing out things I like that properly add to it's concept)--This area should be far more open IMO. Grandfather of LotV's resource model. "Fewer Resources per Base"

wrl Profile Joined April 2011 United States 209 Posts Last Edited: 2012-02-07 22:21:49 #8 On February 08 2012 06:41 Barrin wrote:

Baller. This is a proper air vertical axis reflection symmetry map.



Plenty of air space in the right places? check

Harassable nat? check

Multiple third choices? check

A very open, longer ground distance third? check

A single-entrance, short air distance third? check

Half-bases in middle to potentially shorten attack distance? check

A base with two entrances, one essentially covered by a previous base, the other leading directly into the center? check

Each player gets a watch tower? check

Proper ground vs air duality? check

Low CS? check

Overall features creating a unique style for an otherwise old category? check.



(btw I don't really do a checklist like this to see if I like a map lol, just pointing out things I like that properly add to it's concept)



--



+ Show Spoiler +



This area should be far more open IMO. Baller. This is a proper air vertical axis reflection symmetry map.Plenty of air space in the right places? checkHarassable nat? checkMultiple third choices? checkA very open, longer ground distance third? checkA single-entrance, short air distance third? checkHalf-bases in middle to potentially shorten attack distance? checkA base with two entrances, one essentially covered by a previous base, the other leading directly into the center? checkEach player gets a watch tower? checkProper ground vs air duality? checkLow CS? checkOverall features creating a unique style for an otherwise old category? check.(btw I don't really do a checklist like this to see if I like a map lol, just pointing out things I like that properly add to it's concept)--This area should be far more open IMO.



<3 Barrin.



Everyone seems to agree on the mid, but I'm as stubborn as a mule so I at least want to see abit of playtesting first to see how it pans out given that there are two other options to travel through mid besides that area.



Thx for feedback.



<3 Barrin.Everyone seems to agree on the mid, but I'm as stubborn as a mule so I at least want to see abit of playtesting first to see how it pans out given that there are two other options to travel through mid besides that area.Thx for feedback. Looks like a really nice, solid map. The one thing I don't like so much is the very top middle part. The only real purpose of it seems to be to avoid the XWT vision with big armies. If it was high ground it'd make more sense to go though there imo. Also I'm not sure if that small harass entrance into the nat really is that fun. Kinda ruins Forge FE's.



Originally the concept was that the top was (in addition to avoiding the tower vision) a neutral expansion, I then intended it as a more open attack route than the chokey center. Now its purpose is less clear and I do think it could possibly benefit from being a high ground instead.



As for the natural. I was trying to find a balance between FFE is free every game, and FFE is doable, but you need to be careful of early game pressure. There is plenty of time to get up a standard FFE location, but you may need to get a second cannon up sooner than normal to properly protect yourself. Originally the concept was that the top was (in addition to avoiding the tower vision) a neutral expansion, I then intended it as a more open attack route than the chokey center. Now its purpose is less clear and I do think it could possibly benefit from being a high ground instead.As for the natural. I was trying to find a balance between FFE is free every game, and FFE is doable, but you need to be careful of early game pressure. There is plenty of time to get up a standard FFE location, but you may need to get a second cannon up sooner than normal to properly protect yourself. It's funny; I dream a lot, but I'm not a very good sleeper.

FlopTurnReaver Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Switzerland 1971 Posts #9 Looks like a really nice, solid map. The one thing I don't like so much is the very top middle part. The only real purpose of it seems to be to avoid the XWT vision with big armies. If it was high ground it'd make more sense to go though there imo. Also I'm not sure if that small harass entrance into the nat really is that fun. Kinda ruins Forge FE's.



Oh yes and I have to agree with Barrin about that center part. I don't think it should be much more open, just a tiny bit. Check out @MapOfTheMonth on Twitter and under http://bit.ly/motmorg

Siracuz Profile Joined January 2012 United States 13 Posts #10



Also really digging the layout



One suggestion aesthetically would make those skinny rock bridges (near 5 and 7 oclock) look reinforced by steel in some way, may work may not. Kind of like that shiny center piece has those 3 big pipes. Some more detail at the ends of those pipes to really make it look like it's very solid and holding itself in place would work nice too I think.



I just read your text now and see that you were aiming for what I was saying about this map, so nice job! These are the kinds of things I learned studying architecture, it seems like you may have some architectural knowledge yourself



Bi-symmetry is very hard to pull off but I think you did great.

Great job of merging the natural with the man-made, that's a challenge I always like to see solved, and you did it in a nice way. I also like the square shapes and how the texturing reflects the square terraces nearby. The grey border around the mains gives them a nice kick. Glad to see you carried that border to the other expo's that are the same height as the main.Also really digging the layoutOne suggestion aesthetically would make those skinny rock bridges (near 5 and 7 oclock) look reinforced by steel in some way, may work may not. Kind of like that shiny center piece has those 3 big pipes. Some more detail at the ends of those pipes to really make it look like it's very solid and holding itself in place would work nice too I think.I just read your text now and see that you were aiming for what I was saying about this map, so nice job! These are the kinds of things I learned studying architecture, it seems like you may have some architectural knowledge yourselfBi-symmetry is very hard to pull off but I think you did great.

Seeker Profile Blog Joined April 2005 Where dat snitch at? 33641 Posts #11 OH GOD!!!



Looks so good! I want to play on it!



I love how it's not complex at all. At one glance, people can clearly see which paths to take, which paths to alternatively take and what to do. LOVE IT! Moderator PM me if you want translations done | twitch.tv/dankshrine Weekly SC2 Podcast!

FlaShFTW Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 8464 Posts #12 great map. though i feel as if you should take out the top two bases and make it one middle on at the top Writer #1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget

a176 Profile Blog Joined August 2009 Canada 6685 Posts #13 is there a specific use for the rocks in the middle aside from delaying rushing a bit? starleague forever

wrl Profile Joined April 2011 United States 209 Posts #14 On February 08 2012 08:18 FlaShFTW wrote:

great map. though i feel as if you should take out the top two bases and make it one middle on at the top



I'm not crazy about neutral bases if you don't have to have them. If anything I would put one there in addition to all of the other bases if there was a concern about the late late late late late game (which I don't see there being). In the earliest version of this map there was in fact a 13th base there.



I'm not crazy about neutral bases if you don't have to have them. If anything I would put one there in addition to all of the other bases if there was a concern about the late late late late late game (which I don't see there being). In the earliest version of this map there was in fact a 13th base there. On February 08 2012 09:32 a176 wrote:

is there a specific use for the rocks in the middle aside from delaying rushing a bit?



Increases the rush distance, pushes the mid game into the middle area which is tighter and a different dynamic. Once you reach the late game, the rocks are down, giving you a new attack path.



If you are going for a push where reinforcements are key (such as a tank push) you may or may not want to shred those rocks down for faster reinforcements where they are less vulnerable to mutas intercepting.



Overall the impact hasn't proven to be extremely significant in test games, but they haven't had any negative impact either. Increases the rush distance, pushes the mid game into the middle area which is tighter and a different dynamic. Once you reach the late game, the rocks are down, giving you a new attack path.If you are going for a push where reinforcements are key (such as a tank push) you may or may not want to shred those rocks down for faster reinforcements where they are less vulnerable to mutas intercepting.Overall the impact hasn't proven to be extremely significant in test games, but they haven't had any negative impact either. It's funny; I dream a lot, but I'm not a very good sleeper.

SigmaFiE Profile Blog Joined October 2011 United States 332 Posts #15 Some days I come on here pumped because I feel like I've done well. Than I see a map like this that in my heart of hearts I know took less time and effort than my best maps that I dumped hours into, and this is better by far. Well played. . . well played!



On more serious (well, less serious I guess from my perspective) -- I really like this, even if the layout is not game changing to current mapmaking. https://johnemerson.artstation.com/

aiuradun Profile Joined February 2011 Denmark 114 Posts #16 nice effort, seems really good, but want to try it out to see how it feels playing good job



ihasaKAROT Profile Blog Joined November 2010 Netherlands 3502 Posts #17 The third seems weird. Sorta a deadend thing, if you let it sit he gets econ, if you go to attack it you are stuck. Damned if you do , damned if you dont... KCCO!

wrl Profile Joined April 2011 United States 209 Posts #18 On February 08 2012 18:32 ihasaKAROT wrote:

The third seems weird. Sorta a deadend thing, if you let it sit he gets econ, if you go to attack it you are stuck. Damned if you do , damned if you dont...



The dynamic is that the low ground third is extremely vulnerable to air assaults, if you expand vertically its extremely vulnerable to ground assaults. The dynamic is that the low ground third is extremely vulnerable to air assaults, if you expand vertically its extremely vulnerable to ground assaults. It's funny; I dream a lot, but I'm not a very good sleeper.

SidianTheBard Profile Joined October 2010 United States 2208 Posts Last Edited: 2012-02-08 17:44:46 #19 Ya know, first glance I loved the third (the closer to your opponent third) yet after thinking about it, and seeing what Karot said, I kind of agree that it does seem kind of weird imo. You said it's extremely vulnerable to air assaults but that's not really true. The minerals are up against your main and with a turret or two on the side close to your opponent you'll be safe to drops. I'd almost say expanding vertically is more vulnerable to ground & air assaults due to the fact you'd have to put more Anti-Air to defend the verticle third as well as it's farther away from your other bases so it'd take ground units much longer to get there to defend.



I could see if you flipped the minerals to face the other way, so the back of the mineral line is facing your opponent, but then they might be too close to each other. Wouldn't want tanks to be able to hit them from the middle etc etc. I'm wondering if you rotate the minerals about 45 degrees so the back of the minerals are exposed to the bottom of the map. I would draw a picture with what I mean but I'm at work atm and really can't haha.



Aesthetics on this map are A+. Didn't you say in your texture video you probably weren't going to make this map a melee map because it had too many "custom" things in it? What changed your mind? Or is this a different map? Creator of Abyssal Reef, Ascension to Aiur, Battle on the Boardwalk, Habitation Station, Honorgrounds, IPL Darkness Falls, King's Cove, Korhal Carnage Knockout & Moonlight Madness.

wrl Profile Joined April 2011 United States 209 Posts Last Edited: 2012-02-09 22:27:41 #20 On February 09 2012 02:43 SidianTheBard wrote:

Ya know, first glance I loved the third (the closer to your opponent third) yet after thinking about it, and seeing what Karot said, I kind of agree that it does seem kind of weird imo. You said it's extremely vulnerable to air assaults but that's not really true. The minerals are up against your main and with a turret or two on the side close to your opponent you'll be safe to drops. I'd almost say expanding vertically is more vulnerable to ground & air assaults due to the fact you'd have to put more Anti-Air to defend the verticle third as well as it's farther away from your other bases so it'd take ground units much longer to get there to defend.



I could see if you flipped the minerals to face the other way, so the back of the mineral line is facing your opponent, but then they might be too close to each other. Wouldn't want tanks to be able to hit them from the middle etc etc. I'm wondering if you rotate the minerals about 45 degrees so the back of the minerals are exposed to the bottom of the map. I would draw a picture with what I mean but I'm at work atm and really can't haha.



Aesthetics on this map are A+. Didn't you say in your texture video you probably weren't going to make this map a melee map because it had too many "custom" things in it? What changed your mind? Or is this a different map?



The reason that base is so vulnerable to air assaults is the complete lack of warning you are given to incoming attacks. If you have an OBS/Ovie/Viking or something hanging out in the high-ground pod between bases, it gives you a very short period of time to react. It is also very easy to assault the bottom base and then fly up to the main and assault that after your opponent has committed forces to the low ground. There is also an area south of the low ground to hang out in that is out of range of ground units. If further testing proves that the base is too safe, I'll take a look at changing it, but I think there are some powerful air assault opportunities with the current setup.



Originally it wasn't intended to be a serious melee map, but the rest of the TPW team liked it and we tweaked the layout enough that we thought it was suitable for serious playtesting.



Also, changes coming soon. Hopefully by the end of the day.



EDIT: UPDATES AWAY The reason that base is so vulnerable to air assaults is the complete lack of warning you are given to incoming attacks. If you have an OBS/Ovie/Viking or something hanging out in the high-ground pod between bases, it gives you a very short period of time to react. It is also very easy to assault the bottom base and then fly up to the main and assault that after your opponent has committed forces to the low ground. There is also an area south of the low ground to hang out in that is out of range of ground units. If further testing proves that the base is too safe, I'll take a look at changing it, but I think there are some powerful air assault opportunities with the current setup.Originally it wasn't intended to be a serious melee map, but the rest of the TPW team liked it and we tweaked the layout enough that we thought it was suitable for serious playtesting.Also, changes coming soon. Hopefully by the end of the day. It's funny; I dream a lot, but I'm not a very good sleeper.

1 2 Next All