broodwarmaps.net banner

BWMN Time
12/19/2018
06:56
News
new account
list users
Login:
name:
:PW.:
Replays
Map DB
ICCup
Map Access
New map
Edit map
 


Back to "league" maps.   Show all maps.
Last update for (2)Spinel Valley 3.2 : 2018, 10, 05 08:55
mapIDMapname (comments)map sizeAuthorRatingTypeplay type
3167 (2)Spinel Valley 3.2 128*96Testbug/Freakling, Concept: Spinesheath3.1leagueground

The map has been rated 24 times and got a total of 74 points
<<>>
Download
Melee

Observer

You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
Comments:   GMCS (0 elements)


Testbug
sorry for adding test reps crackling :(

note: 3rd relay TvP was on a very old version of the map, i jst uploaded it to see how flankable is the middle iven in a tigher version.

okay, this is my version of spinel valley :D
i hope Nasty likes it :(

Basically it is the same as spines lates version, but less linear and with some more decorations.

also the exposed expos are on a cracked terrain so dragoons can shoot scvs from the lowgrond.

i would really like te read spine's oppinion :(
modified by Testbug
(:
this is very nice good job testbug and spinesheath

reds nats tau cross cliff is less "droppable" than blues. i suggest you to make the same doodads at both sides when it comes to things like that.
NastyMarine
I think the space added to the map will improve on some aspects of the game. Good edit.

We should add this to the Spinel Valley thread on tl's forums. It would be good to compare it with Spinel2.0. I think we can get a good response with this edit.
spinesheath
Well, you basically heard my opinion already.

I don't see how this is less linear (whatever you want to express by that anyways), and forgive me if I can't imagine how this should have more or even better decoration.

In my version, the middle expansions' mineals are arranged fairly horizontally, and since horizontal cliffs are only 2-3 tiles wide and minerals are 2x1 tiles large, you can shoot the workers with goons easily. Better than on vertical minlines.

It is tighter than my version pretty much everywhere.

The crags in the middle are surrounded by sand dunes, basically creating 2 perfectly buildable lines. The unbuildable terrain surrounding it is kinda useless that, since those 2 lines are really enough for turrets.

Those nat cliffs are both tankable. Besides, I still think that there shouldn't be a cliff over the nats.

I don't like those ramps, the borders are so damn blocky -.-

So I basically can't seem to find anything this map has over my version.
Crackling
lol the reps :(


why dont you add ALL the reps?

i mean the 3453459345 where i won :(
anotak
this seems better than the original spinels
Nightmarjoo
SW NE add re-add the cliffs behind the expos!

Spines when I played the map it felt less linear imo.
SiaBBo
I dont like the ramps. :)
spinesheath
I still wonder what exactly you mean by less linear -.-

No cliffs behind those corner expoes... At first you complain that zerg doesn't have a safe third gas and then you want it cliffable. It also would stray off the concept, with the center expansions being extremely harrassable and the rest fairly safe.
Testbug
nonono, the replays had bad ramps!
o already made new maps BEFORE uploading this map!

also spines, mi horitontal criff behind the exposed fields was haxed, so you can shoot workers easy (i copy pasted tiles from another sides to make it smaller)

your version had lots of buildable areas in the low grouns, i though yoou wanted to be like that, i followed your verions in the map turney thread :(

i wanted to do as similar as possible to your version :( but with the thing in these other places.

and YES, crackling won exactly 3453459345 games vs me, as he has said, but reps didn't show the map and i was just owned by him :(

i added a replay where i proxy gate like blue storm, a rep showing that the cliff behind nat is also good for protoss, and a replay where nightmarjoo managged to flank a terran army in an old version of the map (a tighter one)

i guess spines is not happy with my work here :(
i'll go back to finish vouces then ;_;
modified by Testbug
spinesheath
On my version only the very center is buildable (and maybe I'll make that unbuildable too) and some of the area close to the cliffs. So the rocky ground acually forms a pretty wide unbuildable line, except for the center. I also used unbuildable tiles that look like normal dirt, btw.

Your "haxed" cliffs together with the mineral width still form an at least 5-tile-wide area that you have to cover with your ranged units. In my version it's more like 3/4 tiles. So I clearly favor the horizontal arrangement.

Well, I already told you that I prefer my version over any version that has been uploaded here so far. It's not that your map is bad, but I have my reasons why I like my version better. Of course I don't claim it to be perfect, though.
Nightmarjoo
A cliff there imo is essential to lategame gameplay for pvz and tvp, while nearly irrelevant in zvt. A cliff does not compromise the security of that expo for zvt.
spinesheath
And why should it be essential?

By the way, you guys kinda fail to explain me what exactly you mean by "less linear". Maybe you don't know either?
Nightmarjoo
It makes the map less turtly by allowing you to harass the expos more. It just helps gameplay by giving you more options and giving you more things to worry about without compromising gameplay. Without that, those expos are very easy to defend. This is important in zvt, so zerg can take and defend a 3rd gas before hive tech, but makes turtling much easier for protoss and zerg in zvp, and same thing with tvp. It just helps the gameplay to have them be harassable, and it doesn't effect zvt balance-wise at all, and just adds a little harass potential to the mu too, if it makes any difference at all there.

By less linear, I mean the map focuses less on going to and from eachother's nats. Less linear means the game focus is more on more of the map, rather than having the players just kind of pick a direction and go.
In your map, you see how you basically are expoing in the same direction you're attacking? That's what makes it more linear. Yes you have the corner expos, but that's just one gimicky thing which does help make it less linear, but overall does not have a huge effect on gameplay focus. The angle between the nats is not far off from being 180 degrees, with them being nearly across from eachother. This means already, that a lot of the gameplay will be focusing on moving left and right. In testbug's version, because the expos are more up and down oriented, there's a much greater emphasis on going up and down, in addition to there being a lessening emphasis on moving left and right, thus making the map less linear, making it more directional.
spinesheath
The map concept is the following: Harrassable/unsafe center expoes and fairly safe nat/corner. If the corner expoes get a cliff it strives off the concept. It does not improve the map either. Besides, the center expansions already are so harrassable that a cliff over the corners would be overkill. In my version, at least. In this version, the center expoes are much safer, actually, because of the cliffs which form more than half a circle around the expansions.

In zvt once we get into lategame, zerg usually doesn't have any mutas left or not enough to mention them. Drop will usually be a bit away as well. But terran already will be moving around with a dropship, making it very hard for the z to hold his 3rd gas with that cliff.
I don't believe that a possible lurerdrop in zvp will change much; from the layout it doesn't seem as if it could do much damage anyways. And a protoss usually doesn't care if he drops his HTs on a cliff or directly behind the minline.

Actually you are NOT attacking in the same direction as you are expoing... You are expoing on your diagonal line, your enemy has his diagonal line and the middle is a parallel to both. If you want to attack, you will have to cross the middle, which is obviously not the same direction. If you are moving along your expo line, your enemy will have a great opportunity to counter, if you are going through the middle you risk being flanked hard, and if you move to your opponents side at first you again leave your back very open.

Pretty much the same applies to this version. Just because the diagonals are a little tilted or you have to walk a little ark here and there it does not at all mean that the gameplay changes.

Besides, I am fairly sure that the distances from nat to nat / main to main are even longer in this version than in mine; and even in mine they are fairly long...
Nightmarjoo
"Besides, I am fairly sure that the distances from nat to nat / main to main are even longer in this version than in mine; and even in mine they are fairly long..." and?

"Actually you are NOT attacking in the same direction as you are expoing... You are expoing on your diagonal line, your enemy has his diagonal line and the middle is a parallel to both. If you want to attack, you will have to cross the middle, which is obviously not the same direction. If you are moving along your expo line, your enemy will have a great opportunity to counter, if you are going through the middle you risk being flanked hard, and if you move to your opponents side at first you again leave your back very open.

Pretty much the same applies to this version. Just because the diagonals are a little tilted or you have to walk a little ark here and there it does not at all mean that the gameplay changes" imo it makes all the difference in the world, it matters.

"It does not improve the map either" I just explained why I'm pretty sure it does improve the map, any reasoning as to why it doesn't?

"The map concept is the following: Harrassable/unsafe center expoes and fairly safe nat/corner" works for zvt great, zvp alright, tvp badly imo. Diverging from this present concept and making the corner a cliff, more or less doesn't effect zvt, only kinda if at all effects zvp, and improves what could be a big turtle-fest of tvp. If you're arguing that it makes no difference, then it's no pain to add it. You don't have to believe me that it helps gameplay, but if you think it makes no difference then go ahead and do it. Worst case scenario, it can't help, but it also can't hurt -.- But I think it helps.

The cliff opens gameplay focus more, gives you one more thing to worry about, to watch, to use, etc. You could thusly say that it helps make the map even less linear.
spinesheath
Well, I still am trying to save my concept. It's not like it was planned to be a mix of Bluestorm and Othello. Gameplay focus is supposed to be in the middle, and the middle definately has the potential to create more than enough action.

I want people to win because of superior tactical movements and decisions in the middle and not because your opponent forgot to secure his cliff against tankdrops.

If distances get too long you won't be able to put pressure on a greedy opponent. Leads to very predictable openings.

Well, if you think that walking on an axis 30 from the horizontal is so much different than walking on an axis 45 from the horizontal then that's your thing. Your units are not more mobile that way and it does not open up additional tactical maneuvers. It just tilts the movement direction a bit.
Nightmarjoo
Well I'm more concerned about the map and its gameplay, and not the concept, but I'm not the author or concept-author, whatever.

"I want people to win because of superior tactical movements and decisions in the middle and not because your opponent forgot to secure his cliff against tankdrops"
Well I'm worried that it'll end up with people winning because they won the turtle/attrition game, and not because they had superior tactics in the middle. Saying you could lose from not securing your cliff from a tank drop is like saying you didn't secure your mineral line from an ht drop on any map at any base -_-
anotak
my advice: throw this into the map testing tourney as is. START THE TOURNEY ALREADY. and THEN mess around with cliffs or no cliffs based on those results. okay? less speculation, more testing.

also, who cares about a concept. a map isn't about concepts, it's about a map. i'm sure demon's forest and dmz looked like a great concept to OGN... maybe a cliff is good, maybe a cliff is bad. test it.

that's just my advice though, you obviously don't have to listen to it. :P
spinesheath
I care about concepts as long as there are no OBVIOUS balance issues and everything is based on theorycrafting.
Crackling
upped the map to mapdori.
Testbug
added cliffs for the test games.
if they result to be imbalanced i'll remove them.
i didn't think it was tooo much since terran can't drop the tank in an unreachable place.
dragoons an hit them from the lowground with no ptoblem.
NastyMarine
rofl take my name out of the author category. I didnt help with this map :)
Nightmarjoo
Well without you spines wouldn't have uploaded the concept, and without you the map wouldn't have been made for spines to make his version of, and then testbug wouldn't have remade the map. You put spines' concept on paper, and that alone is important in my eyes :O
Testbug
and you also forgot that i love NastyMarine very much too
anotak
uploaded a rep
MorroW
the natural at down position needs 1rax1supply to block off tvp. the other pos need 2 supply depots. u should have same hex amount when it comes to chokes width

the naturals choke at up left can be blocked with just 1 supplydepot in a bunker rush from top (or a pylon). the down pos cant be.

this maybe wont effect balance alot but just for positional balance and late game. the down position at the rocky path middle, upper pos is 7hex wide and down pos 5hex wide.

behind reds mineral formation in hes corner he can place much more buildings than blue. u should move up reds start location or blues. maybe change mineral formations or put unbuildable doodads. it might be akward for blue atm.

around the nats i think mineral formations must be more fixed so terran can fix 1more turret around the cliff. its 1 turret atm and that wont help anything cuse it will die in a second.

comment (no real issue): since the distance is so long i think u should put 9 minerals in the main or 8 in the natural. atm its 8main/7nat imo is just too little

the down right need only 1 supply 1 rax to block off the downside meanwhile up left need 2 supply. this may effect the early game and the scouting timings will show this imbalance

and just my own opinion here; when i look at this it seems to be favouring terran but im not sure.

u should fix all these things. it isnt too hard neither to fix them. gl hf with that i think this map would turn out solid.
Nightmarjoo
9 block main plz

Morrow I'm pretty sure you can block both ramps from the down-side with depot/rax. I just tried it in staredit.

But, you can wall off red's ramp from the top with one bunker or depot and you can't at blue's. That's really annoying, add a walkable-unbuildable tile please to the top of red's ramp.

Blue's nat can be walled with depot/rax, red's requires 2 depots.

imo the turret space is fine, you can place a turret on either side of the last mineral by the gas, and more on the sides.
spinesheath
You are good at repeating what Morrow said, Nightmarjoo ;)
Nightmarjoo
I was reaffirming that I thought they were issues I felt were necessary to address. Also, I personally had a hard time understanding some of what Morrow was saying, and I thought to save Testbug some time with imo more clear statements ._.
testbug
yes, i couldn't understand MorroW at all, but i know hearing the good players suggestions will improbe the map a lot.

thank you very much MorroW and thankx nightmarjoo for translating (after fixing nightmarjoo's items, i'll try to fix all the things MorroW writed up (i'll need someone to explain)

but i want MorroW happy so he can test maps with his clan or with Cracling.
MorroW
wont test with neither one of them.

dont see how u can not understand
Testbug
all bugs fixed
except this one:
"the down right need only 1 supply 1 rax to block off the downside meanwhile up left need 2 supply. this may effect the early game and the scouting timings will show this imbalance"

i couldn't understand it but i modified main-to-nat ramp and 12/6 ramps :)

Uploaded as final version.
Nightmarjoo
Edited map to my obs version and reuploaded. Also fixed players to be user-select.
MorroW
good job
Testbug
i had a funny game today, enjoy the replay :P
Nightmarjoo
Uploaded my rushed modification for convenience.
Crackling
uploaded awesome rep of my even more awesome lurker drop harrass style with jaedong like multitask owning morrow...

kidding :P
MorroW
<3 :D
testbug
shit joel, i edited the map on auhust 19th
i edited the nats, some wide ramps, the bug doodad at 3 o'clock and the main formations.

you just edited the map you had in your hard drive but didn't check for my new version.

it seems that you used mirror tool, it doesn't creates a fair symetry, i told you i was leaving again.

please, test the chokes and copy main gormations from latest bluestorm vriosn (current formation are like blue storm beta version)

as far as i know, the bunker doodad has walkable tiles. please don't make a rush version and work the best you can.

the best you can is good enough.
but my version was better anyway :)
spinesheath
Nats are WAY too tight. At least in the version you used for that replay, testbug.
Nightmarjoo
Testbug I just made the edit in a hurry to use for the tournament, I know it sucks lol. Just waiting until you can upload a super testbug version. Same for Voices IV lol.
MorroW
widen the main ramp by 50%
since i post this pretty late i suspect i need arguments so here we go:

the way the nat and main is made arbiter recall or overlord drops can be deadly serious i hope u agree with me. making alittle wider ramp will create a more comfortable late game.
due to distances and that its low ground main and high ground natural the ramp isnt much of a defense itself. i mean u wouldnt put the marines in the choke with scvs infront to defend from lings. or marines in choke to defend vs the first dragoon.
protoss will fast expansion at this map and if he goes 2gate he will make it as block in natural like on longinus. so the ramp wont get used to protect vs lings sneaking in.

so what i said was: this will not affect gameplay at any bad ways at all. this will create a more comfortable map in late game when many units starts to come. this should defend vs drops alittle better (for all races)



enlarge the corner hills just alittle for a less akward drop situation where units dont drop of properly

tlos)frontliner
Why is there gas issue?
neobowman
Because gas issue anywhere other than the mains are acceptable.
JungleTerrain
LoL tlos)frontliner
testbug
enlarged the cliff at the blitz-X expoes, fixed the chokes and added bridges at the Blitz-X expoes.
Nightmarjoo
I was wrong, map is hard as fuck pvt.
lnept
you guys thought this would be balanced pvt???hahaha oh god
Johnny B.Goode
Oh no Nightmarjoo,it isn't just"hard as fuck" pvt,it's imba zvt too.The entire concept lacks,buddy.This is one of your so gosu MotM,the maps that you praise so much.But wait,it is unfairyou are not alone,the most have voted also in 2MotY for it! Allow me to say I admire such concentrated competence :)

Quote Nightmarjoo:

"Interestingly enough, July's Map of the Month happens to be a remake of last month's second place map..."

Oh yeah.Btw,only one under many of your wrong estimations.

What stands under type? League Map, ROFL!! Let me guess, ICC?? You push it and they add it,right? I heard a lot about their clumsiness.Yes indeed!
modified by Testbug
Testbug
hi johnny, this map is not nightmarho's I made this map and i would like to know why is it so imba ZvT.

you mean this map is very terran favouring?
i left mapping on december, but i can work on my old maps with no problem. i don't care about making the whole map again.

thanks nightmarjoo for the replays, and as you can see, johnny hates you soo much, and he thinks YOU pushed this map into iccup...

jhonny i find your comments very funny, but other people could finf it offensive, i gues it was starparty who censored your message, i cuted the quote and uninvisibled it.

can you help me?
trcc
You stopped mapping? whyyyy
SiaBBo
I owned many terrans in this map.
ptar
That depends on the skill of the terran gamers you've played against.
And i think that you're not playing on such a high level that you have the exactly "perfect" skill like your're opponent.
But thats the basis nightmarjoo and the others are discussing and complaining on.
Johnny B.Goode
Maybe you should not guess about;it was not Starparty, it was Nightmarjoo who fade out the comment. This is yours and Nightmarjoo's typical reaction anytime when you feel you cannot persuade with an answer.The truncation of my comment before you make it visible again is censorship too, the same way of being disrespectful. And after the impertinent way you have posted against Grief,now you play here the saint? Dude,you make me puke my guts out! You pretend my comment was offensive,than point out the offensive part!

Be ensured that I don't hate you or anyone else,but even if I don't post so much like others,I am not blind.Just because I pointed out some things about Nightmarjoo doesn't means I hate him, but it is kinda disgusting the way he act around. Was not he who pushed Faoi in ICC, whitout asking the people here what could be the proper map(s)?? Has he ever pushed since than any other maps aside from yours?? Or you want to make us believe this map joined into the ICC mappack,just so? How stupid do you think we are,hm?But it shows how clumsy they are in the ICC staff to add an untested map,even more clumsy than the one who offered them the map.

And now you wanna know why it is imba ZvT,from me? Hmm, but from Nightmarjoo you don't want to know why it is "PvT hard as fuck"?? Wasn't he the one who praised this map over all,and now he admit tight-lipped, he was wrong??Thats all, is this a satisfying explanation? I see this as a sign of incompetence! He didn't saw troubles with the map as he made it MotM, or as he push it in ICC!!Oh I see,he has no clue how you can fix it!And you as well!I am not surprised.And if you tell me you know what is wrong with it, perhaps you can tell me also why you made it the way you did?? The only answer is,because you don't know that will lead to a imba map!!

I will tell you why this map is T>P,Z and offer you some ideas how to fix it,after you and Nightmarjoo admit that I am right and you two have no idea what makes this map imba and how it can be fixed.
modified by Johnny B.Goode
Testbug
Johnny B.Goode is totally sure nightmarjoo put this map into iccup xD

who is nightmajroo? the iccup god? when faoi was uploaded, we shoed yello-ant lots of maps and he didn't like them.

he didn't like Faoi, but nightmajroo had to edit the map unitil in stopped being a testbug map, and he had to get ridd of the cliffs, and bla bla bla.

Johnny B.Goode i have no idea what makes this map imba and how it can be fixed,

nightmarjoo, it's your turn, plase if you don't help, he won't tell us!!

oh, and Johnny B.Goode you should pm a guy named MorroW :)
modified by Testbug
SiaBBo

modified by SiaBBo
Crackling
This post is not displayed due to its content
Crackling
that was no trolling or an offensive post, just a question.

one more time:

Johnny B.Goode whats your max ICC rank + link to your icc profile please.
Johnny B.Goode
The question is allowed,but out of place.The only questions that matters are:

1. Can you indicate what makes this map imba?
2. What must be done to fix it?

Can you answer one of these questions or can you not? I hope you agree that an answer to your question won't solve the problem in any way,even if I understand your curiosity.
JungleTerrain
Can you?
Nightmarjoo
1. I censored your post because it was a flame, I could've responded to it, but if I had I would've been flaming too, so to avoid a flame fest, I simply censored the comment. Luckily for you Testbug is nicer than me, and uncensored your post and edited it to remove the flames.

2. I've made several threads on bwm asking what maps I should show to yello.ant, showing him ALL maps people asked me to, and relaying yello-ant's responses to each map.

3. I didn't push spinel valley to yello-ant, I showed it to him a few months ago when it was MOTM and he didn't want it in because he thought iccup had enough 2 player maps. He later decided to add it, without talking to me at all.

4. I thought the map would be balanced, and gave long explanations of why. I've decided it isn't as balanced as I thought, and expressed my thoughts that I was previously incorrect, and admitted it seemed as though I was wrong. To flame me for admitting I'm wrong is one of the most childish things you could possibly do. Especially since I've yet to see you give in-depth explanations on balance to any map. I may be a noob asshole, but atleast I try to contribute to this site.


imo the map is unfixable. It's probably as balanced as possible. Maybe little tweaks can improve it somewhat, but on a general scale I don't think so. The map is more linear and tighter than I had originally thought. I submitted my decent games on the map. The pvt was the game where I decided the map probably isn't balanced. I had a really hard time playing that game as protoss vs terran, despite being ahead of him early on. Perhaps my decision to use arbiters instead of carriers was incorrect, but atleast the way I played the map I had a hard time, making me think the map is imbalanced. I could've just been playing the map wrong, maybe it needs reaver and carrier use. Also, I didn't use recalls, which I already stated should be strong on this map. I suppose it's possible the map still is balanced at some level, but my current opinion is that it is not.
spinesheath
JBG, contribute by telling us why the map is imba or stay out of the thread. We are not interested in knowing that you have insight into such things if you keep them for yourself.

And if you tie that to a condition like people praising you as the allmighty JBG that was right from the start, then just stay out of here as well.



Besides, NM, I don't see how that replay shows that the map is imba. Your reaver attack wasn't really successful (you lost 3 reavers and 1 shuttle for a 3 tanks and a few SCVs), and your opponent got a lead in upgrades in the mean time.

Then you totally overexpanded (5 bases vs 2 bases...), and while that might even have worked for some weird reason, you attacked him shortly after in defensive position. You obviously lost your advantage there: He had a sizable army left, and most of your population was workers. From there on you never had an army that could compare to his, and you fell behind in upgrades even more.
Nightmarjoo
ok

I didn't watch the replay. I just played it, lost, and decided map was imbalanced.



Johnny B.Goode i have no idea what makes this map imba and how it can be fixed
modified by Testbug
Gil
Hi Testbug et all,

I have some very bad news. I was planning to use Spinel Valley III in a tourney with friends, but during practice we found that the ramps on this map are bugged ...

Check the replay of DPTR vs Poobah where we discovered the bug.

Description of the bug follows :

Refer to this screenshot with 3 dragoons near a ramp : http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii259/Gillias72/Spinel-ramps.gif

Goon A holds the high ground, goon B is on the ramp and goon C is on the low ground. What happens when these goons attack each other ?

Goon A vs goon C
----------------
A hits C 100% of the time.
C hits A ~50% of the time.

This is of course the normal behaviour in high-ground vs low-ground battles using ranged attacks.

Goon B vs goon C
----------------
B hits C 100% of the time.
C hits B ~50% of the time.

Again, normal behaviour.

But now the bug appears :

Goon A vs goon B
----------------
A hits B ~50% of the time !
B hits A 100% of the time !

For some reason, dragoon B is enjoying cover as if he were under a tree or holding the high ground vs a low-ground opponent, while this is clearly not the case. Against expectation, B is in a superior position vs both A and C !

The bug is only with ranged attacks. Melee units such as firebats, zealots and archons do not miss when attacking goon B. Mechanics are similar to attacking enemy under Dark Swarm.

I tested all 12 ramps on Spinel Vally III in similar fashion and the bug occurs on every ramp.

The "cover zone" where goon B is, stretches across the width of the ramp and I estimate it is 1-2 tiles high. The location of this "cover zone" varies between 2 positions, depending on the ramp : it is either right at the boundary between light and dark tiles or slightly above it (towards top of the ramp).

This has bad implications in several matchups :

PvP : goon vs goon battles.
PvZ : hydra's on high ground attacking zealots holding the ramp.
TvZ : marines on high ground attacking lurker burrowed on ramp.
Etc.

Our tourney starts next Monday (April 6 '09), so it looks like I'm going to have to replace Spinel in the map pool - unless the bugs can be fixed quickly. I hope for the latter, since I like the map otherwise and initial feedback from our players on this map was also positive.

Looking forward to any updates !

Cheers,
Gillias.
spinesheath
Very interesting.

I can't really prove anything since I didn't test anything, but here's my thoughts:


This is how the ramps are built, from bottom to top (physically, the other way round in your picture).

Rocky Ground:
-lowground, no sprite stuff

Low Dirt to Low Sand Dunes
-lowground, no sprite stuff

High Sand Dunes doodad tiles:
-medium ground, sprite stuff

High Sand Dunes to High Dirt:
-medium ground, no sprite stuff

High Dirt doodad tiles:
-medium ground, sprite stuff

High Dirt:
-medium ground, no sprite stuff


I have always wondered if the lower hit chance came from the sprite or from the doodad tiles, but I never actually tried it out. Someone should do that with a sprite on normal terrain and "tree" doodad tiles without a sprite.

Anyways, what you observed makes me think that the lower hit percentage is triggered by the doodad tiles. Dragoon B seems to stand on non-doodad tiles, but dragoons are fat and Starcraft usually doesn't base such calculations on the center of a unit, but rather some corner of the collision rectangle or whatever. So the Dragoon B could actually stand on doodad tiles.

Dragoon A probably is on non-doodad tiles then, and Dragoon C obviously is far away from any doodad tiles.

AvC and BvC obviously fit into that assumption.
So AvB then: Both dragoons are on medium ground, so the height difference won't cause any lower hit chance. B can hit A at all times because A doesn't touch any doodad tiles. A can't hit B always because it stands on a doodad that normally has a sprite and thus grants cover for any units on those tiles.



tl;dr:
Exchange the doodad tiles for tiles that don't have anything to do with sprites. Dunno if there are any unbuildable ones that don't mess up the visuals heavily.
freakling
Uh oh!

Your are right, both of you.

That IS a serious bug.

There is another one, by the way.

All the high compound doodads are bugged (same as the high basilica doodads in twilight terrain) and are actually medium ground while they should be high ground, thus granting vision for unitis on low ground. Everytime I hover an Overord scout over the compound behind enemy's nat it is shot down by some dragoon or something...

However, I know that both issues can easily and quite quickly be fixed.

EDIT: @Gil, just PM me your e-M@il and I can give you an unbugged version by tomorrow.
modified by freakling
Nightmarjoo
Freakling if you could upload them somewhere and post the links in this thread I'd greatly appreciate it, and probably edit the map to use the unbugged version unless Testbug has objections.

I'll also see to it that Yello-ant is informed that an improved version of the map is available for whenever the mappool updates next. I'll add you to the map trigger credits as well.
Gil
Spinesheath : thanks for the explanation behind the bug, and of course for the great map concept.

freakling : I recommend you go with Nightmarjoo's suggestion so we have ourselves an official fixed version of Spinel Valley, with you in credit. Thanks for fixing the map !

Thanks all for the quick reactions to the issue.

Cheers,
Gillias.
Freakling
OK, here is the link.
I changed nothing but the two bugs.

http://rapidshare.com/files/216365951/Spinel_Valley_III.1_bugfixed.7z.html

Only problem might be that pathfinding seems to be less smooth on the new ramps.
It is not disastrous or something, just the normal little diffidence that units show whenever they cross a hight level border. What is so noteworthy about it is, that there was nearly no such effect on most of the old ramps. It almost seems like the "sprite doodad tiles" were somehow smoothing unit movement, but it is certainly difficult to tell anything certain without further testing with different tilesets.
What kind of drugs were those blizzard guys smoking while they wrote the path finding algorithm???!
Gil
Thanks much freak ! I tested all 14 ramps on your fixed version and found no more "cover" bugs.

The pathing seems fine to me, certainly no worse than what I've seen on Korean pro-maps. I used goons and we all know how horrible their pathing can be.

Our players will resume playing the fixed map in practice and if any more bugs show up, I'll let you guys know.

I'll keep an eye on this thread to grab the official updated version (approved by the authors) before Sunday.

Cheers,
Gillias.
freakling
Yeah. I think even Koreans do not bother alot about tile editing and how it might influence pathing. It is just way too complicated and random. I tested all (maybe not all but certainly many) different combination of non cover bugged tiles on the ramps and though they all seemed to have a very marginally different effect, but it is hard to tell for sure...

Maybe someone can reverse-engineer the pathfinding algorithm or something :P

But I think it is time now to put the "cover bug" to some constructive use. It has lots of potential, it is like a dark swarm, but less extreme and easier to fit into certain areas. The most obvious challenge is to make these areas instantly recognizable for players.
modified by freakling
Gil
"
But I think it is time now to put the "cover bug" to some constructive use. It has lots of potential, it is like a dark swarm, but less extreme and easier to fit into certain areas. The most obvious challenge is to make these areas instantly recognizable for players.
"

It's worth a shot for sure, but I suspect the biggest challenge is probably to put it to use while at the same time still have the map be fun, balanced and non-buggy. :p Korean mapmakers have frequently tried in the past with either permanent dark swarms or doodads and the balance was either off (Persona) or the use of doodads for cover created non-intentional side bugs (Demon's Forest).

Maybe some day someone will get it right.

Cheers,
Gillias.
freakling
Persona was just a horible uncreative attempt. Taking what looks like the most basic layout possible and just adding dark swarms on key locations like nat ramps and mineral lines, where they are sure to have great influence and most likely to completely throw off ballance and tactics to a degree were it is just boring, cheesy and [...] well...
In the end dark swarms are just way too hard in their implications, making ranged units completely useless. Doodad tiles have a lesser effect and can be used in more variants so ballancing them out should be possible.
And demons forest used whole doodads, not only certain tiles. The cover effect was just one of the sideeffects and I think the concept was more about the pathing and vision. However, the cause of the bug was the presence of unwalkable subtiles, not the use of doodad tiles per se. So if one only uses completely walkablke tiles (as seen on spinel valley) there is no ill side effect other than the cover provided.

In other words: Testbug already got it right. Only that he did not want to ;)
modified by freakling
testbug
ROFL at "What kind of drugs were those blizzard guys smoking while they wrote the path finding algorithm???!"

thank you very much Freakling!
nightmarjoo could you please upload Freakling's version? i don't have SCMDraft in my new PC, and without frakling, i wouldn't have time to update it :P

i think you should credit not only freakling.
you should credit the team who tested the map.
they played and found the bugs, they spent time testing dragoons in the ramps.

thank you very much Gillias.
i left mapping in december and don't have too much time now. but feel free to pm if you need me.
i'll always try the best i can.

thank you, can i?
Nightmarjoo
Fuck, you don't have scmdraft? But I need you to edit Frostmourne :( I can't work with all that copy/pasted stuff lol.

Yes I'll upload his version.
Testbug
ok ok ok i can work on old maps like i did with voices and spinel) but i don't have too much time (that's why i'm not making new maps)
freakling
Finally, here is my version of Spinel Valley were I fixed Testbug's testbugs :P (lame joke, I know), with Testbug's permission, of course.

chage log:
==========
- fixed the cover bug on all ramps that gil discovered
- fixed the altitude/vision bug on nat compounds (before you ask: There are no tank holes now, of course)
Nightmarjoo
boooooo make the picture bright again :(
edit: edited.
modified by Nightmarjoo
testbug
more Edits!
-enlarged the main ramps, now you'll need twelve zealots to contain the ramp.

-corner expos are now wallable with pylons or with gates or with something else, this will help protoss vs zerg at lategame, where zerg was free to move arround. now protoss can turtle there.

-added a wall at the high ground muly (this will help protoss vs zerg lategame, protoss can now turtle there too)

-minonlies are now facing the edge of the map like spines's version, this will make him very very happy :D

-i don't remember what else did i change

*thank you freakling for the nice ramps!
i aded your name with the authors (had to remove NastyMArine because there is no more room, and he did nothing in this map :P)
freakling
Have you not updated the image, yet? Because I can see no changes.
Testbug
lol you are so funny
ProTosS4EveR
i can sell you 2 good eyes for $10 each
Nightmarjoo
Testbug why'd you do that :(

And III is prettier than 3.1
spinesheath
I hope that you are only talking about the version number and not about the map itself when you say that III is prettier than 3.1.

Take a look at the ICC map stats, spinel has quite a bunch of games and good stats, but zvp is at about 55%.
Of course I didn't see all those games, but the imbalance should mostly be caused by the lack of safe resources for protoss in late game.

I talked about that to testbug and made a few suggestions and it seems as if he agrees with me.

Also, what exactly are you so sad about, NMjoo?

testbug
Edited 12 and 6 cliff and balanced NE cliff
fixed some wrong tiles, (unwalkable/unbuildable/ugly)
Nightmarjoo
I liked the spinel expos :(
Crimson)S(hadow
testbug and freakling should do a jungle map....

testbugs' pretty jungle terrain innovations//cut-and-paste doodads + freaklings ramps//extended doodads

if the map is crappy gameplay wise at least it would be very very pretty
LasTCursE
actualy they already have some jungle terrain maps: (4)Shakras (2)Silver Flush
modified by LasTCursE
MorroW
up the map i seen u put some cliff border to make symmetry, thats nice but it looks like crap. i expect u to mixture it with more than 2 tiles

speaking of symmetry, behind the structure at 3 and 9 o clock the areas arent as open. probably good to fix since i smell proxy there

can u really wall reds natural wiht 2 supply 1 rax like blues?
the rax must be at the bottom but it looks just like the tau cross at 11 o clock where zea can run between that structure terrain and the barrack. u should try it out.

move reds startlocation 1 hex down and same with blue. also remove some of that cliff blue got at the side of his main. in reds main he can build factories all the way in
Crimson)S(hadow
that is CRACKling, not FREAKling.... apparently they are different people
LasTCursE
i'm sure they are ^^
Nightmarjoo
I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't.
MorroW
who cares ^^
testbug
lol they are surely different people.
Impervious
I'd like to bump this to say that it is a fantastic map, and I am sorry that ICCUP has taken it out of the map pool. I've had a lot of fun playing on it.
spinesheath
Thanks from me, and probably from everyone else who worked on this map.

I really love how this map turned out maybe except for a few minor details. Really awesome work by Testbug/Freakling. Too bad I never was playing/able to play a lot of BW since this map was out.
LasTCursE
I prefer the first version that testbug posted.. :) great map tho i love it..
Impervious
Yea, there were a few minor bugs that I found in it as well (there is a tank hole on the ridge by the 10 oclock base, you can place a tank right on the high ground.....), however, this map played out really uniquely.

And so many different strategies and cheeses are viable on it (the pylon outside of base proxy gate like HBR is doable on this map, for instance). The map can be divided many different ways, unlike some maps which play out pretty typically when it gets to a late-game and both players take half the map each.

Overall, it is a great map. It's such a shame that ICCUP didn't keep it around and try to promote it more.
jackets
This post is not displayed due to its content
crackling
since this is bumped anyways

I'm NOT freakling


!!!!!!!!!!!!
crackling
Anyways whats up guys?

Is testbug still around? I guess not.
Joel what are you doing atm?

And wow at P4ever dude you are doing great in sc2 mapping!
modified by crackling
XeLious
This map looks really good. I almost want to play it because it looks fun.
triller1
great job


  
7
Replays


--Testbug vs Crackling(1on1, 1.15)
--Testbug vs Crackling(1on1, 1.15)
--Crackling vs Nightmarjoo(1on1, 1.15)
--Crackling vs Testbug(1on1, 1.15)
--Anotak[Yellow] vs Scara[Yellow](1on1, 1.15)
--dvsb vs Testbug(1on1, 1.15)
--Crackling vs Morrow(1on1, 1.15)
--PsychoTemplar vs Morrow(1on1, 1.15)
--Sir)Alice vs Leo_X(1on1, 1.16)
--Konata.Izumi vs k7.scooter(1on1, 1.16)
--Konata.Izumi vs k7.scooter(1on1, 1.16)
--Sir)Alice vs Eniram[Forge](1on1, 1.16)
--Sir)Alice vs Eniram[Forge](1on1, 1.16)
--Sir)Alice vs Eniram[Forge](1on1, 1.16)
--Sir)Alice vs Eniram[Forge](1on1, 1.16)
--DPTR vs Poobah(1on1, 1.16)
--Plus vs 2.day(1on1, 1.16)
--Favian vs eViLove(1on1, 1.16)
--Topstar vs Caffine(1on1, 1.16)
--Modesty vs Favian(1on1, 1.16)
--Plus vs Favian(1on1, 1.16)

Upload replay for this map
Add your comment:


Because of heavy spam on the map comments, it is needed to be logged in to post. We are sorry that this has to be done because nothing else stops spam bots
random map
  (4)Lipa
Newest updates:
  (2)Aelia 0.04
  (4)Blackhole
  (4)BlockChain0
  (3)Neo_Sylphid_
  (3)Whiteout0
  (4)Nebula
  (4)StarField
  (4)Grand Canyon
  (8)Yggdrasil
  (4)Gods of Egypt ..
MOTM
  • month 9:
      (2)Neo_Noahs Ark_..
  • MOTW
  • week 2015.36:
      (4)Heartbeat
  • Main Forum
  • Which..(triller1)
  • Is th..(triller1)
  • 4p De..(triller1)
  • I nee..(triller1)
  • Feedback
  • This s..(triller1)
  • Rotati..(triller1)
  • Off Topic
  • What's..(triller1)
  • Vetera..(triller1)
  • Questi..(triller1)
  • Starcraft 2
  • announ..(triller1)
  • STARCR..(triller1)
  • Search Forum
    Articles:
     
  • How to make larvae spawn at the bottom right corner  
  • Worker pathing guide - How to debug and balance resour  
  • An elegant way of dealing with cliff asymmetry
  • Competition:
     
  • Innovative Naturals Competition  
  • Tourney Map Pack Aspirant Suggestions  
  • Maps That Need A Remake