new account
list users
Map DB
Map Access
New map
Edit map

Back to "beta" maps.   Show all maps.
Last update for (4)Beast II : 2009, 01, 22 23:26
mapIDMapname (comments)map sizeAuthorRatingTypeplay type
3257 (4)Beast II 128*128neobowman0.3betaground

The map has been rated 43 times and got a total of 14 points

You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
Comments:   GMCS (2 elements)

Had a sudden brainwave and made this map. I'm still working on Heart of Firebat, I just wanted to get this concept on a map asap.
Very interesting. I notice a lot of issues, but since I've always liked the concept of a nat like that, I'll try and brew up some solutions later on to see if we can make this work (have good gameplay and balance).

At any rate, probably your best map.
very nice map. A bit tight overall so I think there should be some terrain modifications.

Anti-Air wise, Teal and Red have more angles they have to protect against than the other two. I think that is a sizable positional imbalance.

The mains could be a lot bigger.

Again very nice though. Can be a lot better with little work
modified by NastyMarine
Natural is sht.
move red and teal start location 3 hexes closer to the edge, for a better main design closer to ramp and vs muta harass and positional balance

change the neutral buildings to only 1 type of building for simplyfy the gameplay, somewhat akward with unnessasary many different buildings

use tar behind the min-onlys instead of nullhigh dirt for easier mini-map

make reds and teals cliff edge to tar more straigt for easier main design

possible imbalance:
purple (t) vs red (p), t's slow push will be almost impossible to stop since protoss got no flanking room

t>zp (hard third gas, little flanking room)
this map is pretty wellmade
How about removing the middle gas expoes and adding a gas to the mineral onlys while adding ramps to where the gas expos were? I'll find a place to put a few more expos so that the map doesn't have too few.
It could be more open, but u might lose some of your concept in the edit, maybe.
Looks like one of your best maps so far, i like it

Positional imbalances will work against the gameplay
Any new problems spotted? I've been thinking of moving Red and Teal's starts to the edges of the map so positional imba is reduced.
woow this map is awesome! i wish i could help give better feedback then that though :( and if you'd like i can get some casual replays on this map for you.

well i have a minor idea, but i have no idea what it would do to the map. you can consider it anyway, ill gmcs it.
Interesting but that would allow the Terran to go a short way with an mm push and destroy a Zerg's defense mid game.
modified by neobowman
i think that would only matter if players are on opposing sides right? cause otherwise the other paths are shorter...
though im probably forgetting a few billion things wrong anyway. do as you will :)
modified by illisid
Wait, what? I was talking about the fact that a Terran can flank the Zerg's natural on both sides with mm so you can't make a line with sunkens, or you have to make 2. If they have to go around the long way, then the Zerg will have a chance to pick them off with zerglings.
oh right. i was thinking about exiting the base.
The two middle expoes on an otherwise rotational symmetric map tend to be positional imbalanced. I would try to find a way of removing them and make better use of the huge tar areas along the sides to make room for four new expos. That would very likely mean to restructure most parts of the map, however.
In my opinion, those expansions will not be taken until late game at which point, the positions won't matter too much. The main and the natural are far easier to defend and you get 2 expansions for only 1 line of defense.
Well they just don't work properly as neutral expansion, so yeah I agree something maybe should be done about them.
add a neutral building of each side of the natural to help pvz fe. inspire ur self from othello.

move the start locations alittle away from the edges since atm the mutas can destroy terrans gas too simple, imba simple.

just maybe add a minonly on cliffs behind the rocky ground area, but not making it tankable from the third gas expansion. inspire ur self from rush hour? lol :)

from where its rocky groud that rocky ground should keep going until the third gas comes.

take another look and change the placement of the neutral buildings, zerglings can pass some areas without killing them, LOL.
hello neobowman u afk?
I was going to edit after NMJ posted but he's taking a while so I just made the edit.

I added power generaters to either side but I'm bad with inspiration so I dunno if they're good.

Where do you want a minonly? Behind the third expo where the tar is?

Forgot to move min lines. I have it in the back of my head so I'm going to do it in the next edit.
modified by neobowman
what does "in the back of my head" means?
i remembet Thom Yorke singing "fifteen blows to the back of your head..."
I guess he is german (or maybe something similar) and want's to say that "er es im Hinterkopf hat", which literally translates to "I have it in the back of my head" and basically means that he is planning to do it... ;P
Uhh, sure lets go with that.

Morrow, I don't think I'll be able to include the min-onlys at the 3 O clock and 9 O clock so I'm assuming you mean put it at the 12 and 6 as neutral expansions.
modified by neobowman
Added the min-onlys and made more space to fight off mutas in the mains. I saved it as a seperate map from the old version because I'm not sure about the min-only balance yet.
Only 2 min-onlys? Why?
Can't fit them on the sides without them being tankable.
Then remove the middle expos, reduce the size of the middle plateau and move everything around a bit until they fit!
or change the map size to 192 ^^
That took a while. I had to make new wide ramps X_X.
new ramps are cool.. :)
There you are!
Like it :)
well done, motw imo
I don't like this. :B It look's tight. Expos are weird. Why min only is there? Why you dont make gas exp there and move min only to gas expo?
Agreed. Expos should be swapped. I can't see where it is tight, though.
I don't like the mains. They look funny, look different sized, and have radically different shape. They might be fine though. I sense some positional imbalance though.

I think you need to work more with the nats, and/or the nat mineral placement/formation. It looks awkward for p FE still I think. I could be wrong. You should find pvz reps on rush hour III and hope they have FE and aren't so corrupt that you can't make it 5 minutes into the game. The general shape needs some work: it doesn't seem to flow properly, for example red's nat has some extra space to the left which probably is bad, at the very least it's messy; it's hard to explain, but try and get something which uses the space more roundly the way pro nats do. Also for example, I don't like the space behind the minerals, I understand that you're trying to leave turret room which is crucial, as well as making it so that scvs don't get stuck after making turrets, also important, but I feel there's a better way to do this without throwing a blob of space of odd shape. Consider playing around with the mineral formation, there's probably a reason why in rh3 they placed it how they did.

You might be fine on this, but perhaps consider doing massive pylon count checks to check sizes and distances. Pylons are good for this because they have the same tile width and height.

The middle is a little meh atm. It's incredibly spacious as result of removing the expos. Unfortunately, removing the expos was a good thing, because the middle isn't big enough for any kind of expo, not even an andromeda expo imo. However, the middle is incredibly invaluable atm because it's so spacious. It reminds me of Faoi, but in Faoi you absolutely have to use the center, same as in Nazca and Longinus. Longinus has a much tighter middle than the other two maps I mentioned, but Longinus also takes importance off of the middle by giving the lowground areas more room. I think something like this is probably the best solution. I reccomend playing around with decreasing the middle size, and playing around with the new lowground space you get. Consider how your new expo layout strongly emphasizes the sides the way rh3 does, and consider how small/tight rh3's middle is, and how vaccuous your middle is. The fact that it's big doesn't counter the fact that it's useless (for example it does in luna, imo). So since the sides are emphasized, the sides need to be larger and the middle needs be smaller, if you continue using this expo layout.
Also, we can look at what causes the middle to have that shape and size which inhibits it from having an expo. Because it has 8 very important paths which cut it into pieces, there is no good place for an expo. These paths are pretty crucial though, so removing them is more or less out of the question, but if for example you had a larger area, the fact that it was cut by 8 lines wouldn't matter as much, and you could try throwing down an Andromeda expo, or two neutral expos as you had earlier. So what makes it too small for this? The nats. Notice how much space is taken up by the nats. There's highground shit closing off the chokes at the edge closer to the map's edge, highground closing off the chokes between the nat cliff and middle highground cliff. There's a shitload of highground shit making the nats untankable. Restructuring the nat with a different formation position, and/or different layout in general would free up a lot of space. Is that good though? It certainly drastically effects the map's concept, so perhaps look for an alternative. You also could restructure the mains instead, allowing the nats to be moved away from the center more, using the map edge as the edge of one choke for example, and you even could do the drastic reshaping of the nat/formation at the same time too to free up even more space.

About the min only: I'm not sure I'm a fan of it. For those of you who want the gas there, that's stupid. There's a reason tau and othello, which similarly has such a close in proximity 3rd gas to the nat have such vulnerable 3rd gas expos. Look at rh3, this form of high/safe min only vs low/vulnerable gas expo worked very well. Look at Athena: massively turtley and imbalanced. There are times when a tight high expo like that with gas is useful (but they're a little more open), such as in (2)Peaks of Baekdu, (4)Dread Core, and almost in (3)Longinus, except Longinus' plateau expo has much more room. So in conclusion: high min only low gas expo is good in this map.
However, I'm not so sure that this expo layout is good for the map. Consider the map in its earlier form. Huge emphasis on the middle, the neutral-blocked paths are crucial to unblock to free up flankability. Then you changed the expo layout to massively emphasize the sides, with this min only/gas expo layout. The neutral-blocked paths are still crucial, but not for the exact same purpose. However it makes your large middle completely useless, and a big waste of space. Now, here's where you really need to think hard about what your concept is. Now I of course don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the main conceptul feature of the map is having a mix of very mobile and not very mobile features in what is otherwise a very mobile area. ie you have your normal swamp of a middle, but a 2 path'd nat which creates more paths but is actually in some aspects less mobile, then the paths which complete everything mobility-wise are blocked off by neutrals: the finished product has important but fairly tight side paths, with the emphasis like most maps still on the center. Now I admit it'll be tricky to develop a more complex expo layout than before while still keeping the emphasis on the middle. If you want to put the emphasis on the sides, start taking notes from tau cross, rush hour III, and to some degree Othello. For a more centrally oriented map, consider uh (4)Return of the King and (4)Byzantium as maps with similar expo layouts... can't think of better examples atm sorry.
Basically, you need to figure out what your concept is and go with it 100%, you can't half-ass it and try 34009345 different concepts, that wastes the space.

I could be wrong about everything btw, so you should hope that someone else here actually reads this and gives what they think about what I said.
Basically my goal here is helping you refine your concept, and execute it better. Look at the picture, it doesn't look like a pro-map, but why? Just little things add up to make things sloppy and awkward.
So it's possible to fix this with just editing, but to do it perfectly it might require remaking it, good luck =/ This is why I don't make maps anymore, impossible to keep things up to my standards.

Sorry for the delay, I know I gave you a lot of work if you consider half the shit I said, but don't worry, I can rig MOTMs in a matter of minutes, and I never post them on time.
have fun reading that neobowman, and ofc, no offence nightmarjoo i apprieciate your helping ppl. ill read all that tomorrow :)
Entrances are tight.
Haha don't worry Morrow, I pm'd him the same thing "have fun reading that" rofl.

Siabbo, your mom is tight!
Damm that's long. It'll take me a while to implement the changes. Hopefully before motm is over.
"Damm that's long" That's what she said.
Your dad said that to you?
Yes. He was proud.
Looks like ur dad is gay.

"Damm that's long" That's what SHE said.


Your dad said that to you?

You know what I mean?
Or maybe it's a cultural difference.
I uploaded a replay, just 'cause it has none yet. This is one of my brother's best games yet. (he's still learning.)

I like this map :) but change the players to user select please.
Some random thoughts:

In my opinion the "problem" (if it is one) with your expos is not the minonly on the hill but rather the third gas which, while being quite open, are still relatively safe with the formations facing the mains, which would be a typical spot for a minonly but not for a third gas (al though ROTK has something similar, but not as close to the nat). Sadly just turning them around to face the middle (and thus making them cliffable from the central plateau) would just make them indefensible.

The conclusion: You need to redesign the middle (I think I said that before?)
I hope you have all those ramps saved ready to copy-paste somewhere ;P.

What I would do is create a somewhat Katrina-like middle with the four third gas expos, regardless if lowground or highground as the middle expos in your first version, moved towards the centre.
Just a raw guess about a possible layout: The 3rd gasses facing the nats and broad ramps pointing approximately into the directions where your 3rd gas expos are now.

However I am not sure what to do with the neutral building blocks. Maybe moving them a bit outwards... This basically depends on the pathing that your new layout would create.

I also thought about augmenting the minonly plateaus a little bit and/or giving them broader ramps.
modified by Freakling
you can attack the nat/3rd gas 6 ways, it's not that safe

but katrina-esque middle might work
They are open and thus eay targets for a major push/attack but with the mineral formations facing the main they are almost impossible to drop/muta harrass.
Umm... You never really get the chance to muta harass a third base anyway because the Terran will have science vessals or the Protoss will have archons. Drops are possible behind the mineral line.
Freakling that's the point, same exact thing can be said about tau's 3rd gas. Compare this to the min only, which is less vulnerable by ground, but much more harassable.
At the moment, I'm pretty sure this is a bit worse than the last version. I need to figure out whether to add more neutral buildings or to keep it the way it is. This way, it tightens the map up. Also, which ****ing neutral building should I use? The stasis cells had way to much space around them. I used norad IIs instead of power generators because the generators didn't work for some reason. The top right and bottem left mains are slightly smaller than the other mains. Not enough to make a big difference but important enough for me to change soon.
I've tested the Protoss wall-ins and they seem to work for all positions. I'm not a P player so I won't be too sure though.
modified by neobowman
Wtf? How the hell did I double post on this site?
modified by neobowman
I'm not sure what I think about this. Seems like a work in progress still at anyrate. Don't reccoemend using xel nagas there. Also if your neutral won't fit, bare in mind you can use tile editing to create a slightly larger cliff edge or whatever.

I kind of don't think this map can be made 100% done any time soon, so I think I might make Nasty's map win this motm and maybe you can try for next month since the map probably has potential. Or maybe you'll have made a better map by then. Dunno. I'll await the call from you. Try and reread what I wrote the first time over and over and see if you think this map works given what I said, and what to work on if it doesn't. I frankly don't feel like rereading it any time soon, but I can give you another big post later in time, and hopefully after you've done more work.

Get others' opinions first though.
Hm after looking at it more, it's decent, I think it's a solid improvement, but it's not perfect yet. Look at Testbug's maps more for some ideas on what to fix with the execution.

Also, Beast 1.2?
oh ok no motm for me! :)
now that is a better map :D
OK, first of I think this should be at least version 1.2...

I still don't like your third gas expos. to close to the mains and nats (and I won't argue if in some cases it might be possible to muta harrass a third gas or not because that is not the key point). If you want to keep them as they are now then at least make them ballanced (east and west are tankable from minonly, north and south are not).
The new mineral layout at the nat makes harrass even more difficult. I propose you move your third gas expos a bit clockwise and make your nats there and move your nats even further clockwise until they are at almost 3,6,9,12 o'clock (or rather next to the minonly) and use them as third gases.

The neutral buildings you search for might be psi disruptors. they are quite bulky, have the same amount of hp (2000) as your original stasis cells and have very interesting collision properties - placed "on tile" directly next to each other without overlapping they are zergling tight but let scarrabs pass (no matter where the buildings "touch"). However I don't understand your complaints about the stasis'. I think they are zergling (and even scarrab) tight, at least in perpendicular direction (and horrizontally you need overlap anyway to make equal choke points).
In fact (or at least in my opinion) they are ideal buildings for a neutral wall because they are compact but tough and almost square shaped which makes horizontal-perpendicular ballancing easy.

I would still like the reintroduction of middle expos. With your current overall layout as origin I would try to create four "excrescences" of the middle plateau somewhere around 2...4 o'clock (and analogous directions) with broad ramps on the sides and the third gas on it.
However that would turn out quite clumsy, I think so I would exchange nat and 3rd gas positions first anyway (see above).
modified by Freakling
this really should be 2.0 imo
can someone explain to me whats the point of those buildings except creating path issue?
no i think thats about it crackling
i wasnt joking at all
inb4 "me neither"
no, the point is to make path issue. that's all.
i also think temples should be removed.
maybe the nat should be clockwise the main ramp (just moving the ramp to the nat's current place, and move the nat to the side of the map.

nats can remain double choked.
work on the distances of highground minonlies (wtf! normal sized ramps minonlies???)
maybe you should change the middle, and the wide ramps placements (look at MorroW's Plating)
Point is for zvt, the distance to attack from the other side of the nat is a lot longer, to help balance the fact that z might have to make sunks on both sides.
Tried to adress most of the issues in this version.
the old version with the Xel temples was better
maybe u should push in the power generators into the cliffs so zerglings cant pass behind, look at othello
oh you did exactly what i was going to do!
remove the power generators :S
what about nostalgia backdoor to the highground minonly? :D
Map is getting better slowly, but I'm worried it's also starting to lose its flare. You should make things more cliffable and maybe experiment with spell use literally just to be adding stuff.

I'm pretty sure NW/SE mains are larger than NE/SW mains, and the main2nat distance (measured from the starting location to where you put your cc in the nat) looks too long for NW/SE and probably also for the other two. I'm not positive though. I tried to copy main2nat distances in Faoi from Python, and in Faoi main2nat distance for a nat above/below the main was 24 unsieged tanks, and 32 unsieged tanks for main2nat with the nat to the left/right of the sl. If you accept the distances in Faoi as being good, try to copy such distances by moving the sl accordingly. Pylons make better measuring sticks than unsieged tanks though, I dunno why I used to use unsieged tanks instead of pylons, I use pylons for everything now. Well, pylons can't copy routes I spose.

Your middle seems proportionately lobsided. Each side isn't "equal". Look at the position of the ramps, distance from ramps to landmarks (like neutrals) etc. You'll probably have to create your own ramps. You could use Colosseum ramps, or make up your own using crags or some terrain which exists and looks the same for both highground and low, and you can maybe use existing ramp tiles for the edges or something.
Also, the ramps at 3/9 are twice as close as the ramps at 6/12.

There are a lot of positional differences (read: imbalances), with incorrect proportional symmetry for the different x/y zones. For example the middle as I said above, the cliffability of the gas expos, distances from things to eachother, the nat2neutral distance of SE is shorter than the nat2neutral distance of SW. If you move the 3rd gas expo of SE/NW down a bit so it's next to the main just like the other two, the nat2(3rdgasexpo) distance will be the same.
The nat2minonly distance seems to be about the same, but the nat-minonly distance for the min only by your own main (but farther from the nat) distance appears to be off, SE to 3 was a little longer than SW to 6. The min onlys appear to be different in size, and also both could probably use additional space. The point of having the min only on a cliff like that is to give it a default sized ramp but make it easy to drop by giving it more space. Giving it a larger ramp like that and making it small is analogous to just putting it on the lowground where it is and giving it a thin wall on its sides. Remember, you're using the idea for the min onlys from rh3, so don't stray from that unintentionally. If you're doing it intentionally, please explain why, and more than "testbug said so" please :). Since you don't have a whole lot of room to add to the min onlys, making it more dropable could just mean giving it a cliff to be harassed from, which wouldn't have to be as large. I don't like the position of the minerals in the min only either, as well as the formations.

Definitely test your neutrals for being ling tight. Make sure your chokes are the same tile size too. SW neutral choke is 2-2.5 pylons longer than NW neutral choke.

You're entering the realm of mapping where eye-balling it doesn't cut it most of the time. You need make more measurements. I personally use pylons for almost everything, but for some distances it might just be better to do an in-game test and use a stop-watch to see how long it takes for a unit to get from A to B.

I don't like your main, nat, or min only formations.

Since your nats are not cliffable, I kind of reccomend making everything else cliffable, but that's a personal judgement call on my part.

Your decoration is terrible. Blots of squares are ugly, you need bigger shapes. Copy Testbug and pro-maps. p4ver usually does ok too. Also, crags are unbuildable in large clusters and look a lot prettier than rocky dirt. Use them more if you can. Remember, you can use tile editing to make things walkable but unbuildable at any time. Also, your edges are bad. The edges of tar at 9 are good. Try to use edges like that more often. You have too many straight lines or ugly rise/run lines. The tar edge at 9 is the most efficient rise/run line for an edge on left/right from what I've seen. Good lines tend to not just look good, but also often indicate good sizes and distances. And good lines are great for pure aesthetics as well of course.

I think the neutral on the right side of the nat at SW should be moved to the left, closer to the ramp.

I think the map's concept is nearly furnished/rendered, but the map's execution still needs work.
Yay, another long post and I didn't even ask for it. I'll get to it asap.
lol the map has to be perfect to be motm. I couldn't justify the map being motm if its execution wasn't atleast as good as Ridge2Ridge's.
Not much too add to what nightmarjoo said. Generally said the map (still) needs a radical makeover. Don't care to much about decoration, just get everything right first.

Marjoo is absolutely right about the minonlys. I wouldn't give them a more than double size ramps (two tiles more than standard ramp). At least east and west formations are really... strange at best.
Your 3rd gases are still really imballanced in almost every aspect (nearby cliffs, relatins to mains and minonlys etc.).

I stick to my opinion. that 3rd gas and main positions should be swapped (and accordingly adjusted, see my last post), also partly because the neutral walls make crosspathing an impossibility in their current setup.

Another idea that is basically of pure aesthtical nature: Why don't you add some standard desert ramps (like in Troy). Who ever said that all ramps in a map must look the same??!! You could use standard ramps for mains and for the smaller ramps to the middle for example.

feels like everybody is gonna become a part of this map ^^
i fixed the minonlys and the rocky ground yaay :D
also position of start location

anyhow this map has changed sooo much and gj neobowman for beeing flexibel dunno if thats english word but its swedish :P

Improving decoration can be beneficial to the map itself, with regard to edges, Freakling.
Also I don't understand what you mean by "switching the main and 3rd gas", but I'm pretty sure I disagree. And imo his ramps are fine. Same looking ramps means they are also the same buildable/size-wise.
Btw, I found that I could place a wall-in for toss quite easily without the neutral building. Should I still keep it and reposition it or should I scrap it? (I tried regular earthattack ramps but they didn't have the same placement as regular ramps so I used the desert ramps)
I think I don't get your point (or you mine... whatever)...
I get the feeling that you either do not read properly or not think about what you read before you post...

"Improving decoration can be beneficial to the map itself, with regard to edges, Freakling."

With decoration I don't mean thinks like unpassable/unbuildable terrain and cliff adjusting which of course have an impact on gameplay but all those things like doodads etc. that are not really necessary for the map to work.

"Also I don't understand what you mean by "switching the main and 3rd gas", but I'm pretty sure I disagree."

I said "swap" meaning... Well... put the nat where the 3rd is now and vice versa :P. You can disagree of course and I do not say that was the ultimate solution for all problems. It is just something I would try out to improve pathing and expansion setup.

"And imo his ramps are fine. Same looking ramps means they are also the same buildable/size-wise."

As I said this was a pure esthetical proposal. I neither did say that his ramps are imballanced nor that he should put different ramps on each main or something like that.

However I do not understand your problems with Troy ramps, neobowman. After all they kind of are the "regular ramps" for desert terrain... So I do not get what you mean...
modified by Freakling
imo center should be edited, and neutral building are not needed at all.
what about a nostalgia/gaia ramp at nat?
OK I was wrong about the pathing... It is not the crosspathing that sucks but the horizontal pathing. Sending units/a scout from 11 main to 2 main will get them stuck on the wall...

And wtf is that Torrasque sitting around there (or should he justify the map name?!?!?!?!)?! Map description still just says "Destroy all enemy buildings"...
modified by Freakling
Map is beautiful, any map that helps in the fight vs FE Protoss is good in my book.

--illisid vs BENJAMUS(1on1, 1.15)

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
  (3) Wonderful
Newest updates:
  (4)Nightshade 1.1b
  (3)Downtown 0.70
  (4)Ashworld of Char
  (3)Ifrit 1.2
  (4)Mar Sara Waste..
  • month 6:
      (2)Butter 2.0b
  • MOTW
  • week 2021.01:
      (3) Lambda 1.0
  • Main Forum
  • New B..(Kroznade)
  • Magna..(addressee)
  • No Fo..(Pension)
  • Share..(Shade)R)
  • Feedback
  • This s..(triller1)
  • Rotati..(triller1)
  • Off Topic
  • scm dr..(addressee)
  • Real L..(Pension)
  • Vetera..(ProTosS4Ev)
  • Starcraft 2
  • announ..(triller1)
  • STARCR..(triller1)
  • Search Forum
  • 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  
  • Think Quick Map Contest ($100 prize)