This is IMO the best map I've ever made, at least concept wise (decoration may need a face lift).
Impassible doodads behind minerals fix pathing (thanks largely to StarParty for telling me this, although this concept is mine so don't give him too much credit ;)) Remember that though the pathing is fixed, don't be stupid and click the very corner of the map and tell me the pathing is broken. You still need to click in their base to go to their base.
Used lancets "Charches" idea. This should allow for some exciting things to happen in the middle ;) Remember that only ultralisks cannot pass under the arches.
Gameplay is intended to be unique, fast paced, with no non-sense-macro-styles. All bases are unsafe, all races should require early units for pressure and defence. Scouting will be absolutely pivotal.
Green lines mark where ramps are (in case it's too difficult to see in picture).
Scout? Counter? etc? Why would you need drop? I'd rather not have people who've never played an experimental map tell me how imbalanced it is. Yes, sunkens are a possibility, I think everyone figured that one out.
I'm not sure if the OB version of this map is working. I forgot to check (make ob triggers for 2 players) when I was first starting the map, so I had to make the triggers myself (and in my experience SCMDraft is really unreliable as far as triggers go).
Wow! Trully amazing map. I was going to suggest placing dwebs behind at least part of the main's mineral line because of the "sunken strategy" but you show in the reps how at least protoss can deal with this. I am not sure, however, how terran would counter this. Getting an SCV/prove to the arch to stop the zerg drone seems essential but then what happens when the lings arrive and claw at one of the generators? The blockade is then broken. It would be great it you can get a TvZ replay dealing with this issue.
Next time I play Mushu I'll tell him to 6 pool and I'll go Terran. It won't be realistic because I'll know exactly what he's going, but I can think of a number of ways to ruin a sunken rush with both P and T. modified by PsychoTemplar
And I'll call you Psycho because I like that name better.
This is a ridiculously awesome map, it must be the drugs or my lack of playing starcraft, but recently i've loved maps that do crazy shit like this. You defy all the rules yet escape heavy criticism!
Way to use "new" mapping technologies in a cool way.
Moebius and protogod please take this fight to the Main Forum to the right of your screen. You can start a thread there to discuss this particular issue. This thread is, in theory at least, devoted only to offering constructive criticism about this map.
There are open spaces and tight spaces in this map. I believe the open spaces I do have are sufficient for Protoss for flank approaching Terran army. If it proves to be a problem in replays, I will remove hindering doodads, perhaps change the nat/min nat set up.
But to be honest, I don't think any map with a back door is a "Terran wet dream". But thanks for being a dick about it.
Moebius, if the map is a terran's "wet dream" then surely you can provide us with a general strategy for winning (against both Z and T), which is it? In fact surely you can upload a replay demonstrating this strategy. Can we see it?
Heck, the map is devilishly complex, the main's mineral line is extremely vulnerable, the main has a backdoor, the area in front of the nat can be reached by 3 different routes, 4 if you count the plateau whose entrance is blocked by neutrals and this plateau can be used for drops and has 2 entrances. The sheer number of possible strategies that you can use here are mind boggling. The name of this map could easily have been "adrenaline".
Of course, I can be wrong, please correct me (with arguments), thanks.
oh my god, who in the holy fuck cares about your pathetic theorycrafting over at waarboard or whatever the site is called. Why dont you post the replays for the 1000+ games you played on the map to show us the statistical imbalance factor in this map. If you somehow managed to loose all those replays from all of those games you MUST have played on this map in order to label it, then just get the fuck out.
Actually LGI, doing that may stop zerg's sunken rush altogether and terrans have an early ranged unit, the marine. If terran blocks entrance of zerg to the creep area they can place marines behind zerg's mineral line. Of course zerg can counter with a sunken behind the mineral line but access to the creep area should not be made more potentially difficult than it is already.
zerg owns terrans sp bad on this map its not even funny. Of the 5-10 tvz me and pt played, i annihilated him in various ways every time and vice versa. Terran didnt win a game. We can up with an idea to balance it out a bit, but as it is now, terran dont stand a chance.
Terrans wet dream? What a joke tbh. modified by Starparty
Yeah, what StarParty said. Testing has shown that Terran is severely hurt by this map, and I will be making changes to remedy the problem.
I think that even if I did eventually come up with a magical strategy to counter the fast sunkens, it would not be hard for Zerg to suddenly switch strats and go hard lings on my back door or something. The idea StarParty and I have to fix it though, seems promising to me, and I'm looking forward to having some games once it's done.
Damn! This is what I spotted in Arches of Char and I forgot about it. If you can direct a worker to mine a mineral clump behind blocking units the workers will cross through the blocking units. The arch blockade will not work if zerg can use an overlord to spot the opposite base's mineral clump within the creep area and then order a drone to mine it (this is not the case with toss that doesn't have early detection). In Arches of Char it was not that much of a problem but here the presence of the creep makes this deadly.
As I initially suggested above perhaps a way to deal with this is to place dwebs behind the minerals. modified by Lancet
This new version should allow Terran some amount of relief. If he gets sunkened, he will lose half his mining efficiency, but he will still be alive, and the Zerg still has to harm his own economy to pull of the manuever anyway, so hopefully this will even things out.
I censored it because A: I said that sunken rush could be dangerous on this map already, and B: because no one cares that you don't like neutral disrupter webs.
I won't invisible your post this time, but I've explained it to you now so I will next time. Honestly, any post that makes every reader go "well, no fucking shit, detective" and then acts extremely negatively in spirit, deserves to be removed from the site. There's no reason to say "shitty d-web" or to restate the obvious for the 4th time in the same page. You can say all the bad things you want about my map, just say them intelligently.
Hey, really cool concept and all but..
I was wondering if u could mayber block the 2 small ramped island with a command center? Its just an idea i had to allow infested builds and, idk but a T can easily (my opinion plz dont critism :( ) just take that expo and have it invincible early game :O
Once more, this is just an opinion and an idea i had of making a CC in a map... and blocking that expo would really make me happy :D
plz tell me what u think about it :P
Maybe if you could make so that the creep would stop a little farther back from the main minerals, maybe so that building a sunken there would only hit 1-2 patches it could even out things a bit. As it is right now zerg simply has way too many options.
Zerg has to kill a lot of his economy to do the sunk rush. You can play me ZvT a few more times and I'll try to see what else Terrans can do (right now I don't find it a horrible trade off to have half your efficiency gone until you tech to tanks).
Plus if I do that, Zerg will never be able to stop a cannon rush from Protoss. modified by PsychoTemplar
Yes, the big thing in this map is that very vulnerable space behind the main's minerals. The concept is so original that I think it is worthwhile to keep it and find ways for Terran to counter.
In the last few games I think Terran did not fully exploit their chance to use this space. I think that getting tanks will be key if terran has not achived control of the central space. Also, in the last few games Terran did not block access to the center to lings by using the arch blockade (a drone going to mine can get through but not lings, they have to destroy the neutrals to get through).
"This new version should allow Terran some amount of relief. If he gets sunkened, he will lose half his mining efficiency, but he will still be alive, and the Zerg still has to harm his own economy to pull of the manuever anyway, so hopefully this will even things out."
"Lancet, I made the player with the gas on the right's a little further away, so they should both take 4 for max efficiency."
But thanks for bumping an old map thread with useless comments.
"a pool is 80 seconds, and since zerg create drones fast, walking distance can be neglected. creep is 20 and sunk is the same, so thats only 120."
If you don't include probe harassment, or you know, the toss having a brain at all to not be completely single track and predictable.
If you think it's so imbalance for Z, I'd be happy to play some games against you, and you can be Zerg.
"toss will not have the option to fast expo which is popular these days, and they are forced to use the rush build up."
Why should I facilitate something just because it's popular? Did you read the "experimental" heading? Probably not, since you didn't read much of any of the thread anyway. Toss FE may not be possible, but Zerg FE isn't exactly catered to either. modified by PsychoTemplar
ahahaha 2 things:
1) this map is way too cool.
2) AHAHHA about the protogod/titanwing (aka moebius)/ warboards... they are the entire reason i ditched warboards and starcraft.org (where protogod is a moderator). jeezus those guys are annoying...
After awhile it gets frustrating when theory crafting noobs say the same thing over and over without ever actually playing the map.
Good luck getting a fucking tank and dropship lol. It's a lot more cost effective you destroy a barrier and use marines, than to tech that far and have no defence for your own completely vulnerable bases.
Hell, you don't even have to play now. Just watch the damn replays. Anything before SuperiorWolf might be on the old version.
This is such a great map! I think that halving the mineral fields made the sunken strategy less lethal but it is still a major concern. One think though, a ComSat station in the West base can be attacked by say a lurker from behind the mineral lines but that is not the case for the East base.
Hey Templar make a better picture of this map, if you want to I can do it for you.
"One think though, a ComSat station in the West base can be attacked by say a lurker from behind the mineral lines but that is not the case for the East base."
Someone else mentioned this too, but I don't see that as an imbalance. My reasoning being that: how is a Z going to attack another Z's comstat? How is a Terran going to sunk rush another Terran? It really doesn't mean anything to game play. modified by PsychoTemplar
"Good luck getting a fucking tank and dropship lol. It's a lot more cost effective you destroy a barrier and use marines, than to tech that far and have no defence for your own completely vulnerable bases."
Sure, it's "cost effective" to bust through those psi emitters, and yes, it's probably what anyone would do. But you can still set up tanks there, and still hit any CC/Nexus/Hatchery without using a dropship. Back them up with a couple squads of marines, and you're all set for a siege. Without a dropship, too. Every map with high ground has a tank issue somewhere, some how. I like the map, and pointed out a simple observation.
So sorry for being a "theory-crafting noob".
Plus Side: Have to say, creep in the middle was very ingenious idea. While I don't personally find ash-maps to be particularly eye-catching, this one does well. From some of the replays I've seen, it plays well, and no major race imbalances. Tanks are nothing more than harassment, you can't win a game by "camping" in the middle.
The fact is that 200 minerals and 100 gas for the factory, then 300/200 for two tanks, and another 150/150 for seige mode is just too costly when you already have low eco, and if you don't get the starport, addon, and dropship to drop onto the cliff, there's really not a lot of point in going up there in the first place.
At least the way I've been playing vs Zerg, which is 8BBS to defend initial aggression (and kill someone stupid enough to FE), into a timing push with my first medics to keep them from getting tech (which is basically gg if they do).
If you have a build where Terran can afford to get Tanks and use them effectively without dying to any aggression, by all means play a game and post the replay.
PS: I called you a theory crafting noob cause you sound like you're affiliated with Protogod and those idiots (especially when you mention Terrans having any kind of advantage, because I've had to nerf Zerg and Toss builds just to make this map fair). It irks me cause there's no reason to believe sneaking tanks up a cliff is anymore effective than building cannons or putting lurkers up there.
I really don't like the gas placement =/ I understand the difficulty in good placement being impossible for blue, but I think there is a better alternative. I can't atm find though, the thread on bwm which had the image which showed the mining for every single angle, possibly it's the 404'd image in diminate's (1)mining, so I don't know which two angles are most similar that would work here (aren't tankable). The minerals could easily be moved around to fit an ideal gas location I think.
I'm pretty sure that blue's gas will mine much faster than red's. Saying "both require 4 miners so it's not an issue" is incorrect, as the whole idea behind the gas issue, and placing geysers at 9 or 12 is because at no other location do they mine the same with 3 miners, and it can be detrimental to play to lose a worker to mine with 4 (especially/mainly for zerg).
Also, I don't like the min only, it looks awkard, for pathing and room, and whatnot.
And, can you add an ovy spot that allows zerg to monitor the backdoor path?
Boys: Gas issue is when each player has a different maximum number of peons they need to put on gas for max efficiency. Red's gas is one space farther away (JUST LIKE ON FUCKING KATRINA! WHY DO YOU THINK THEY DID THAT?) Holy fuck you're frustrating.
"detrimental to play to lose a worker to mine with 4 (especially/mainly for zerg)."
It's really not hard for Zerg to put his 2nd Hatchery on the east or south side of the geyser on this map. It's not like they're going to be FEing.
"Also, I don't like the min only, it looks awkard, for pathing and room, and whatnot."
Well I don't know how you'd know that, considering you've never played the map. I've played it about a dozen times and never had problems. Just control your fucking units when they're going around the back. It's low eco, it's not that demanding that you actually have to click something while playing StarCraft.
"And, can you add an ovy spot that allows zerg to monitor the backdoor path?"
No. Just use a ling, or put your overlord along the cliff from the inside of your base.
Honestly guys. If you're gonna say stupid shit like that, at least watch the replays so you can see how meaningless what you're saying is. I don't upload them just for shits and giggles, they actually are there to prove something.
PS: This isn't theory craft anymore. Actually play the map or don't talk. If you think something can be abused, abuse it and post the replay. modified by PsychoTemplar
Hey guess what, I didn't try any theory crafting, and haven't once on the map; I know better than to theory craft on such a radically different map, so you don't need to flame and be an asshole. As for the gas issue, you can spin it anyway you want, but this map has it. If I mine with 3 miners, I'll get a lot more gas by being blue than red. That's called an imbalance -.- If I want more gas, I'll mine with 4 sure. Katrina uses your gas issue theory only because that's the best they can do given the map's conceptual layout. The fact that every other normal pro map made after a certain point has followed the gas issue according to what myself and spines say implies it is the superior theory. As I think you can do better than what you've done here (whereas it's essentially impossible on katrina), doing it your way is just lazy.
As for testing games, I wouldn't mind playing some with you if you/me have the time.
Katrina has the gas issue, no matter how you turn it. Please don't take it as an example for balanced gas positions.
Though I have to say that Nightmarjoo seems to be too focused on perfection here. I, too can be interpreted that way, but I really just made a suggestion without really caring about whether you do that or not.
The gas issue should not be something to fight about.
I don't even mean to fight. My reply above spines' post was kind of edged, but you jumped on me with hostility in your post above, and for no reason.
If you don't want people to comment your map, delete it. Don't yell at people for commenting. You can call them morons and tell them they're wrong sure, but don't need to automatically jump on people's cases.
"Honestly guys. If you're gonna say stupid shit like that..." wat
Seriously, are you trying to be an asshole?
All I said was "And, can you add an ovy spot that allows zerg to monitor the backdoor path?" Ovy spots are critical for zvt, I dunno why non-zergs can't figure that out "use a ling". That seriously is one of the dumber things I've seen on bwm, and I've seen it several times, and never by a zerg. As for the min only path being "awkward", the path at one point is as wide as a pylon. That's pretty tight. I won't say more about this because you'll just flame me, but this is triggering my spider sense that something's off here, from my sc experience =/
I actually want to test the map now; I'm not just saying "meh I'll play". I think the map can be played fairly normally. And I think you'd love to prove me wrong in a game too.
Do you think I'm some wet, sloppy, pussy, FOR YOU TO FUCK?! DO YOU?!
If you wanna play my map, just go one west and message SuperiorWolf for a game. He's always up to play it. You don't necessarily have to play me (and playing me usually has bad results in our experience) :P If you really want we'll try to have a game (that comment that the map could be played fairly normally is hilarious).
PS: I actually used to play only Zerg, and I used lings as scouts all the time (and still do when I random Zerg), so I don't know what you're talking about :P Also: There are actually a lot of Ovie spots on this map if you'd look carefully. They're not as critical as you make them out to be, but they help as a minor balancer if Zerg are a little weak (which on this map they definitely are not). Lots of pro-maps do not have them.
Templar you know I love this map and I like your maps in general but you really shouldn't react this way when someone makes a critical comment. Even if you think the comment is incredibly stupid either just explain why you think it is wrong, refer the person somewhere else or just ignore it.
As to the gas issue there is something interesting here. To my knowledge the gas issue is always addressed in terms of geysers that are in different positions but as close as possible to the starting location (SL). So the question is: can you make a "bad" position (say right) and a "good" position (say top) equal by moving the "good" position further away from the SL? Or regardless of how far away (within reason) you place the "good" position will there always be a gas issue (will it always mine better than the "bad" position)?
Of course you can always mine with more workers but then the question becomes: is a "good" position further away that is mined with more workers better than a "bad" position nearby that is mined by the normal amount of workers (usually 3)?
How about grabbing (2)gas_issue, modifying it in Staredit so that the assims/extractors/refineries are one tile further away (this actually creates 4 new positions in the corners), and just test it like before. The triggers should be fine.
If you find out that one position is equal to another one, then that's fine. But using the 4 good positions (2 on top, 2 to the left) certainly is better.
Or you could try the positions 1 and 27 that I mentioned earlier, which are already shown to be equally bad.
Something to explain why I am going so much into detail here:
1) I always have been a perfectionist.
2) I like maths.
3) Someone has to be the "bad guy". If it wasn't for people like Nightmarjoo and me, gas-issue-less maps probably still wouldn't be the standard, even with the first few gas issue articles out. If the "bad guys" get lazier and let more stuff slip through, it will take a while to get back to the same level.
DON'T get angry about perfectionist's comments; they may ask for too much, but they often have good point.
Ok. I didn't understand what you were saying yesterday (I thought you wanted me to move the gas to a position it would be vulnerable to attack for one player, and not for the other). Sorry.
"Or you could try the positions 1 and 27 that I mentioned earlier, which are already shown to be equally bad." This is actually untrue. Using a supply depot, I've tested that position 27 is about 80 gas per 5 minutes faster than position 1.
I'll try testing my set up now (although I truly believe no one is going to put less than max efficiency on gas, which is why I don't think that it matters).
The values in my gas issue table are only for the case that nothing is in the way between the gas and the main building. Not even a comsat.
It would be fairly easy to test every single setup, but rather tiresome...
Though I admit that terran should be tested with comsat, and several common pool/pylon placements as well.
I have watched several (very intense) zvzs where both players only have 2 (!) drones on gas for quite a while. And I, too, would think twice before adding that 4th drone on gas in a zvz.
Ok. Tested. After 10 or so minutes, the gases in the position I have them now had maybe a difference of about 80. TBH, that's negligible (and even top and left geysers have a difference of 40 for that length of time).
"I have watched several (very intense) zvzs where both players only have 2 (!) drones on gas for quite a while. And I, too, would think twice before adding that 4th drone on gas in a zvz."
Most ZvZs I've seen players will make a hatchery (300 minerals) at their nat JUST for the gas and not even mine minerals there. So I don't know what noobs you're watching lol... Sounds like they did it accidentally, since I never see that in pro ZvZ.
More replays. Commentary by SuperiorWolf. Been thinking it over and maybe I will change gas geysers, just cause scvs look so bad when they're mining with a comstat in the way. modified by PsychoTemplar
Hmm. Nothing before SuperiorWolf, I think, since those are all on the old version. Chill is probably the best player I've gotten to try my map, but the games are very one sided (somehow when you play against a good player, things you normally thought you did pretty good turn into humiliating points of the game lol). Most of me and Suppy's games are pretty amusing, iirc, and the most recent games are there to challenge the idea that 7pool is a dominant strategy on this map (many a joke were made that I should rename this map Sunken Defence lol TT).
I should appologise for singling you out on TL (and I'll say something there too), because it could have happened to any of us (although NastyMarine has truly been making an ass out of himself recently). Your intentions were good, it was just not really the best method I think (and whether you like it or not, it is the reason I was getting shit; I know because they mentioned you specifically lol). So, you know, shit happens, and it was stupid and immature of me to pull you into this (I should have just left you anonymous).
Lol :) No, I really did mean NastyMarine for that. You should see the arguments he's been getting into lol. All this TL.net vs GosuGamers.net elitism, as if we're somehow different communities. Wish we could all just play nice in the sand box :(
And holy shit, someone actually uploaded a replay without me having either observed it or played in it. This is fantastic, and I must watch it immediately.
So I played two games with Trozz on this map and it finally hit me what could be done to make the Zerg sunken rush less powerful. Two extra minerals on the safe side of the main. Total 12, which is normally very bad for Z due to saturation, 7 when they do the sunken rush, which puts them possibly about even? I dunno, it's something I wanted to try. No one has played this map in a million years, but if you want the original 10 mineral patches total you can let me know...
I also tried playing this a little more normally in my games with Trozz, where in my noobier days I thought it was necessary to be hyper aggressive. It's still an aggressive map, but I like this compromise. 5 patches feels too starved. I can't say anything about balance, but I'm pretty sure this map will never be played enough for that to matter. As a gimmicky experimental map, I still like it a lot. A serious competitive map? Probably not.
More games on this map have given me some more direction :) I\'ve stacked the power generators that backdoor each main as well as the outer battle cruiser by the back door of the natural. This should mean it takes a long time for normal units to get through, while splash units should kill it quite quickly. Stacks are 8. Hopefully that\'s enough, if not I could consider using buildings with higher HP.
**Changed it to 12 xel nagas instead. power generators have pitifully low hp and I want it to require splash for efficiency. modified by Chef
Both gas are inefficient. I put the one on the west players base an extra square away, so they should take 4 to mine optimally. It's not an ideal solution, since that means 3 or less workers mining from it will still have different rates of mining, but I thought it was an ok compromise.