prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts Last Edited: 2012-06-26 06:36:19 #2 I derped and quoted my post instead of editing. >_> ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

ihasaKAROT Profile Blog Joined November 2010 Netherlands 3502 Posts #3



Thats just nitpicking tho since the rest of the map is perfect as usual Why did you make the texturing such a 'hard' transition on for example the expansions? Theres a pretty clear line between the dirtycreep and the tiles atm. If its dirt it should be more smudged in my opinion...Thats just nitpicking tho since the rest of the map is perfect as usual KCCO!

prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts #4 On June 26 2012 15:48 ihasaKAROT wrote:

Why did you make the texturing such a 'hard' transition on for example the expansions? Theres a pretty clear line between the dirtycreep and the tiles atm. If its dirt it should be more smudged in my opinion...



Thats just nitpicking tho since the rest of the map is perfect as usual Why did you make the texturing such a 'hard' transition on for example the expansions? Theres a pretty clear line between the dirtycreep and the tiles atm. If its dirt it should be more smudged in my opinion...Thats just nitpicking tho since the rest of the map is perfect as usual

Because the tiles are supposed to go over top of the dirt! It looks much cleaner in game, of course~ Because the tiles are supposed to go over top of the dirt! It looks much cleaner in game, of course~ ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

dimfish Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 663 Posts #5 I'm a fan!



The semi-third is just right where safe players are happy to take it, greedier players will get out on the map for a better base.



Then I consider how to attack someone who kills the closest rock for a tower and tries to sit back on 2.5 base, and I like that the full thirds on high ground also serve as excellent alternate attack paths, just skirting the tower range.



One suggestion: the small high-ground ridges in the center I think are a bit too big and subtract a lot from the center. Would you consider squeezing them one ramp-unit skinnier? And I would flatten not the "outside" where the chasm line touches but the "inside". I mean you've got the rock/towers presenting some chokiness already. Or maybe its fine... blah, I want to see some games on it!

Sumadin Profile Joined August 2011 Denmark 586 Posts #6 It is a sad day to be a reaper. Think you could extend the area on the fourth so that it makes contact with the borders of the main?



I dig the base layout(through only 5 min on third might be a tad too little) but the center puzzles me. I am not a fan of Xel'naga towers you can't bypass and while it technically is possible here it is very small area and it takes a long time to bypass them all. I guess that is what the rocks are for. The patches of highground in the center also puzzles me. What are they for? The basic key to beating a priest is playing a deck that is terrible.

lost_artz Profile Joined January 2012 United States 366 Posts #7 I can't remember the name of the map but this reminds me of a map that I believe was from the map contest last year. Very similar layout overall.



The only criticism I have is that the 4ths look a bit out of place on those large high-ground areas.



Also I can't decide via map overview those blue-ish fissures/streams by each 4th un-path-able?

OxyGenesis Profile Joined May 2012 United Kingdom 281 Posts #8 On June 26 2012 19:13 lost_artz wrote:

I can't remember the name of the map but this reminds me of a map that I believe was from the map contest last year. Very similar layout overall.



The only criticism I have is that the 4ths look a bit out of place on those large high-ground areas.



Also I can't decide via map overview those blue-ish fissures/streams by each 4th un-path-able?



Are you thinking of



I like a lot of the ideas that are being explored in this map. My only worry is that in PvZ it encourages 2/2.5 base all ins as the 3rd is only a half base and the 4th is really hard to hold when the opposition has the Xel'Naga. How much HP do the destructible rocks covering the Xel'Nagas have? Are you thinking of Darkness Falls perchance?I like a lot of the ideas that are being explored in this map. My only worry is that in PvZ it encourages 2/2.5 base all ins as the 3rd is only a half base and the 4th is really hard to hold when the opposition has the Xel'Naga. How much HP do the destructible rocks covering the Xel'Nagas have? Maker of Maps inc. Vector, Uncanny Valley and Fissure | Co-Founder of SC2Melee.net

Sea_Food Profile Blog Joined May 2011 Finland 1612 Posts #9 Why is the attack path in close positions much more tight and much harder to surround than in cross position?





prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts #10 On June 26 2012 18:34 Sumadin wrote:

It is a sad day to be a reaper. Think you could extend the area on the fourth so that it makes contact with the borders of the main?



I dig the base layout(through only 5 min on third might be a tad too little) but the center puzzles me. I am not a fan of Xel'naga towers you can't bypass and while it technically is possible here it is very small area and it takes a long time to bypass them all. I guess that is what the rocks are for. The patches of highground in the center also puzzles me. What are they for?

I did it like this to avoid Blink Stalker and Medivac abuse (think Antiga Shipyard)



I did it like this to avoid Blink Stalker and Medivac abuse (think Antiga Shipyard) On June 26 2012 19:13 lost_artz wrote:

I can't remember the name of the map but this reminds me of a map that I believe was from the map contest last year. Very similar layout overall.



The only criticism I have is that the 4ths look a bit out of place on those large high-ground areas.



Also I can't decide via map overview those blue-ish fissures/streams by each 4th un-path-able?

That area is also doubling as an attack path, I wanted to have it wide enough for players to move their army through if they had an expansion there.



That area is also doubling as an attack path, I wanted to have it wide enough for players to move their army through if they had an expansion there. On June 26 2012 21:13 Sea_Food wrote:

Why is the attack path in close positions much more tight and much harder to surround than in cross position?





Depends where you're trying to surround, I guess. Lots of space to do it below either natural expansion, or near the 4th's. Doing it near the chokes as you might imagine is a bad idea... Depends where you're trying to surround, I guess. Lots of space to do it below either natural expansion, or near the 4th's. Doing it near the chokes as you might imagine is a bad idea... ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

SidianTheBard Profile Joined October 2010 United States 2208 Posts #11



Make sure 4th's outter gas doesn't take 4 workers to saturate.

Make sure XWT can't get activated with the rocks still there. I know on one of my older maps I had to lower the activation range on the towers to make them not work when 6x6 rocks are on them.

Those little cliffs in the middle between the 2 high ground pieces.....best part about this map!



Picture to understand what I mean.

+ Show Spoiler +







My final concern itself is mainly about the watchtowers. Are they really needed? With them all being blocked by d-rocks the likelyhood of anyone breaking them down early is very slim. Zerg almost make no units to break them down, Protoss won't want to push out to break them down until they get a big enough army. I suppose Terran could, but depending on the matchups a few hellions and/or marines would take forever to break them down.



End game though, all they will serve is a point where Deathballs are going to stand because of the positioning of them, especially with the high ground platforms right next to them.



I know a lot of people hate the lone single XWT exactly in the middle but I think that might be best here. Get rid of the 4 you have now, remove that doodad in the middle and just put the XWT in the middle. No d-rocks on it though. Now it'll give early game vision of all the paths in the middle and thus you can defend easier against 1-2 base all-ins because you'll be able to scout it if they push through the middle. Yet it still won't give vision if you decide to sneak all the way around the edges. (assuming cross positions anyway)



Also, the map still looks amazing, but aesthetically it feels a little lackluster compared to many of your other creations. Most of these things I'm pointing out I could easily test myself by logging into sc2. But I'm not actually around my desktop so I'm unable to do that. So instead I'll ask here so you can easily double check!Make sure 4th's outter gas doesn't take 4 workers to saturate.Make sure XWT can't get activated with the rocks still there. I know on one of my older maps I had to lower the activation range on the towers to make them not work when 6x6 rocks are on them.Those little cliffs in the middle between the 2 high ground pieces.....best part about this map!Picture to understand what I mean.My final concern itself is mainly about the watchtowers. Are they really needed? With them all being blocked by d-rocks the likelyhood of anyone breaking them down early is very slim. Zerg almost make no units to break them down, Protoss won't want to push out to break them down until they get a big enough army. I suppose Terran could, but depending on the matchups a few hellions and/or marines would take forever to break them down.End game though, all they will serve is a point where Deathballs are going to stand because of the positioning of them, especially with the high ground platforms right next to them.I know a lot of people hate the lone single XWT exactly in the middle but I think that might be best here. Get rid of the 4 you have now, remove that doodad in the middle and just put the XWT in the middle. No d-rocks on it though. Now it'll give early game vision of all the paths in the middle and thus you can defend easier against 1-2 base all-ins because you'll be able to scout it if they push through the middle. Yet it still won't give vision if you decide to sneak all the way around the edges. (assuming cross positions anyway)Also, the map still looks amazing, but aesthetically it feels a little lackluster compared to many of your other creations. 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.

TheFish7 Profile Blog Joined February 2012 United States 2814 Posts #12 Nice work prodiG! I am really digging the middle, the low ground dead-end surrounded by LOSBs that can shoot up to the 4th is pretty clever. I also like the half base 3rd, I want to see how games play out with this setup.



Since these are the TL forums, I must criticize something ;-) - so I'll also criticize the 4ths not "touching" the mains, sure it limits medivac/blink abuse, but it will make it harder to defend mutas w blink stalkers and give brood lords ideal dead air to it in. ~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~

FlaShFTW Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 8464 Posts #13 Simplying beautiful. I expected nothing less from you prodig.



I think you need to switch the mineral placement of the 4ths. If a player gets map control, they can control every 4th by just harassing from the low ground areas, giving them even more control on the map. Writer #1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget

prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts Last Edited: 2012-06-26 16:14:25 #14 On June 27 2012 00:44 SidianTheBard wrote:

Most of these things I'm pointing out I could easily test myself by logging into sc2. But I'm not actually around my desktop so I'm unable to do that. So instead I'll ask here so you can easily double check!



Make sure 4th's outter gas doesn't take 4 workers to saturate.

Make sure XWT can't get activated with the rocks still there. I know on one of my older maps I had to lower the activation range on the towers to make them not work when 6x6 rocks are on them.

Those little cliffs in the middle between the 2 high ground pieces.....best part about this map!



Picture to understand what I mean.

+ Show Spoiler +







My final concern itself is mainly about the watchtowers. Are they really needed? With them all being blocked by d-rocks the likelyhood of anyone breaking them down early is very slim. Zerg almost make no units to break them down, Protoss won't want to push out to break them down until they get a big enough army. I suppose Terran could, but depending on the matchups a few hellions and/or marines would take forever to break them down.



End game though, all they will serve is a point where Deathballs are going to stand because of the positioning of them, especially with the high ground platforms right next to them.



I know a lot of people hate the lone single XWT exactly in the middle but I think that might be best here. Get rid of the 4 you have now, remove that doodad in the middle and just put the XWT in the middle. No d-rocks on it though. Now it'll give early game vision of all the paths in the middle and thus you can defend easier against 1-2 base all-ins because you'll be able to scout it if they push through the middle. Yet it still won't give vision if you decide to sneak all the way around the edges. (assuming cross positions anyway)



Also, the map still looks amazing, but aesthetically it feels a little lackluster compared to many of your other creations. Most of these things I'm pointing out I could easily test myself by logging into sc2. But I'm not actually around my desktop so I'm unable to do that. So instead I'll ask here so you can easily double check!Make sure 4th's outter gas doesn't take 4 workers to saturate.Make sure XWT can't get activated with the rocks still there. I know on one of my older maps I had to lower the activation range on the towers to make them not work when 6x6 rocks are on them.Those little cliffs in the middle between the 2 high ground pieces.....best part about this map!Picture to understand what I mean.My final concern itself is mainly about the watchtowers. Are they really needed? With them all being blocked by d-rocks the likelyhood of anyone breaking them down early is very slim. Zerg almost make no units to break them down, Protoss won't want to push out to break them down until they get a big enough army. I suppose Terran could, but depending on the matchups a few hellions and/or marines would take forever to break them down.End game though, all they will serve is a point where Deathballs are going to stand because of the positioning of them, especially with the high ground platforms right next to them.I know a lot of people hate the lone single XWT exactly in the middle but I think that might be best here. Get rid of the 4 you have now, remove that doodad in the middle and just put the XWT in the middle. No d-rocks on it though. Now it'll give early game vision of all the paths in the middle and thus you can defend easier against 1-2 base all-ins because you'll be able to scout it if they push through the middle. Yet it still won't give vision if you decide to sneak all the way around the edges. (assuming cross positions anyway)Also, the map still looks amazing, but aesthetically it feels a little lackluster compared to many of your other creations.

I haven't tested everything in-game yet, but my editor testmode tests have shown that none of the potential issues you're describing exist.



The towers are necessary because they provide vision of the 4th expansions. The point of the map is that if you want more than 5 geysers, you need to move out into the middle of the map and position your army a bit farther forward. Losing the tower below your 4th means that ranged units will harass the expanion.



Aesthetically, I went for a more standardized theme here as opposed to my usual explosive amount of doodads, to try and avoid performance problems and bugs that make me look like an idiot in front of 52 thousand people.



I haven't tested everything in-game yet, but my editor testmode tests have shown that none of the potential issues you're describing exist.The towers are necessary because they provide vision of the 4th expansions. The point of the map is that if you want more than 5 geysers, you need to move out into the middle of the map and position your army a bit farther forward. Losing the tower below your 4th means that ranged units will harass the expanion.Aesthetically, I went for a more standardized theme here as opposed to my usual explosive amount of doodads, to try and avoid performance problems and bugs that make me look like an idiot in front of 52 thousand people. On June 27 2012 00:52 TheFish7 wrote:

Nice work prodiG! I am really digging the middle, the low ground dead-end surrounded by LOSBs that can shoot up to the 4th is pretty clever. I also like the half base 3rd, I want to see how games play out with this setup.



Since these are the TL forums, I must criticize something ;-) - so I'll also criticize the 4ths not "touching" the mains, sure it limits medivac/blink abuse, but it will make it harder to defend mutas w blink stalkers and give brood lords ideal dead air to it in.

The current metagame has shown me that medivac harass quickly dropping on one side and then the other is more of a problem than keeping a few units back to deal with things like muta harass, which is why I decided to go this way as opposed to keeping it flush. It's the lesser of two evils, imo.



That said, the whole "Zerg > All" status quo atm might make me change my mind. I'll keep an eye on it.



The current metagame has shown me that medivac harass quickly dropping on one side and then the other is more of a problem than keeping a few units back to deal with things like muta harass, which is why I decided to go this way as opposed to keeping it flush. It's the lesser of two evils, imo.That said, the whole "Zerg > All" status quo atm might make me change my mind. I'll keep an eye on it. On June 27 2012 00:58 FlaShFTW wrote:

Simplying beautiful. I expected nothing less from you prodig.



I think you need to switch the mineral placement of the 4ths. If a player gets map control, they can control every 4th by just harassing from the low ground areas, giving them even more control on the map.

That's the idea! :D That's the idea! :D ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

iTzSnypah Profile Blog Joined February 2011 United States 1738 Posts Last Edited: 2012-06-26 16:29:38 #15 Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.



EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg. Team Liquid needs more Terrans.

FoolieCoolie Profile Joined November 2010 Serbia 71 Posts #16 On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:

Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large.

EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.



But we like big maps :D But we like big maps :D

EatThePath Profile Blog Joined September 2009 United States 3939 Posts #17 I have to say I think this is definitely your most successful attempt to create a map that pushes beyond the current safe mapping metagame. This is the kind of mapping we need. ;D



I have a feeling the ledges above the half base might prove imba for competitive play. It's pretty rough that marine drop can hit every patch. Of course it remains to be seen, and I hope they aren't. Maybe a ramp blocked by rocks? Or just narrower so they are harder to abuse (less space to avoid defenders on the low ground). I'm curious if you've tested it / what you think. Regardless, it's really cool that you can skip that base in some matchups/positions anyway.



Also I agree that flush cliff between main and 4th would be preferable, as a protoss. Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE

FlaShFTW Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 8464 Posts #18 On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:

Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.



EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.

so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war? so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war? Writer #1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget

NewSunshine Profile Joined July 2011 United States 4458 Posts #19 On June 27 2012 02:32 FlaShFTW wrote:

Show nested quote +

On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:

Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.



EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.

so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war? so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war?

We've got TPW Frostfang, don't we? We've got TPW Frostfang, don't we? "If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale

FlaShFTW Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 8464 Posts #20 On June 27 2012 03:18 NewSunshine wrote:

Show nested quote +

On June 27 2012 02:32 FlaShFTW wrote:

On June 27 2012 01:18 iTzSnypah wrote:

Has the same problem all 4 player maps have, its just simply too large. Also in TvT it is ridiculously effective/easy to set up a Tank contain as the high ground+xwt+2sensor towers would literally set up a map edge to map edge vision field around a 2.5base part of the map.



EDIT: Also I wouldn't mind the .5 base being 4m1hyg.

so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war? so would you prefer to have a 4p steppes of war?

We've got TPW Frostfang, don't we? We've got TPW Frostfang, don't we?

xD yeah, was most balanced map ever.

xD yeah, was most balanced map ever. Writer #1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget

1 2 3 4 5 Next All