(4) Core Delta

[Meltage]

Core Delta




Facts

Players: 4
Map size: 152x152 (playable, incl. air)
Resoruces: 16 regular bases
XelNaga Towers: 1 in the map core
Short main-to-main: 146
Short nat-to-nat: ~120
Cross main-to-main: 179
Cross nat-to-nat: ~155
Main size: 30 CCs

Textures used:


Published on EU as Core Delta.

TL Thread (analyser images, recent updates, etc):
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=216022

Last edited by Meltage on Sat 2. Jul 2011, 00:24, edited 10 times in total.

the concept looks pretty good, also the doodads and texture.

i like what u did with the natural...dont change it to crevasse style. the little cute backdoor is great when u are contained with tanks

This looks like a re-make ver- ... no, a balanced version of delta quadrant. This is a wonderful map

the layout is probably one of the best of it's kind
really, i don't think you can do a 4p rotational layout much better than this

the aesthetics remind me a little bit of doom3 outdoor levels (i am one of the few people who enjoyed doom 3). but i think there could be a few more visual highlights and some more details overall.

if you do go for the additional ramp with the rocks, make sure you place the rocks down far enough so you don't get vision of the highground without destroying them.

i really like the new visual direction.

concerning
1) no forced cross-spawn needed. the layout is good enough.

3) the additional rocks allow more mobility. zerg should prefer to take them down which is fine, but terran really has to destroy them, because taken the long patch each time sucks with a mech army. I do not see a need or any gain by adding rocks in this passage.

4)I think the extra entrance is the better idea. you have an extra attack path or exit and as the DRs are so close to you or rather in your base it would be really hard to break them if your opponent wants to keep them up. Crevasse-style is a different concept!

was looking at this map ingame earlier. one thing i didn't like was how close that up and down ramp was to the 3rd base.

@mereel - hah so the backdoor ramp wasn't as good as you first thorught, eh? Please elaborate on why being close to the third is bad?
I think it's bad in close position that only one player has a shortcut to the possible third that is away from the opponent. On the other hand, you'd open a backdoor to you nat...?

@IronManSC - thanks. As long as the map is better, I dont see a problem comparing to Delta Quadrant, although I fail to see the similarities

@lefix - thanks on the priase, but please elaborate on why you think it's good for being 4p rotational? Is it the placement of the possible thirds, or something else? I've moved the rocks down to the bottom of the ramp, but I'm not sure I go with the backdoor .. (see reply to mereel above).

@samro

3) the additional rocks allow more mobility. zerg should prefer to take them down which is fine, but terran really has to destroy them, because taken the long patch each time sucks with a mech army. I do not see a need or any gain by adding rocks in this passage.

That a player wants to destory the rocks - isn't that a good thing and how rocks should be used? Are you saying that if both T and Z wants to destroy the rocks, they serve no function?

I think about it another way - a good player who reads the map well, will destroy the rocks at the right moment in the game to take advantage of the extra path. If you are defending your third as T or P as top in tvp close pos, for instance, you might take the left-hand-third and keep the rocks to better defend it. In cross pos you'd keep the rocks closest to you of the same reason, but still destroy those along the attacking path.

Am I being ignorant to some aspect of how those affect the game, perhaps?

A close-up on the middle with rocks:

4)I think the extra entrance is the better idea. you have an extra attack path or exit and as the DRs are so close to you or rather in your base it would be really hard to break them if your opponent wants to keep them up. Crevasse-style is a different concept!

I've moved the rocks down to the regular position at the bottom. At the moment, I don't know what to think of it. Some testing with decent players would do some good.

Updated the OP with more images.

3) the additional rocks allow more mobility. zerg should prefer to take them down which is fine, but terran really has to destroy them, because taken the long patch each time sucks with a mech army. I do not see a need or any gain by adding rocks in this passage.

That a player wants to destory the rocks - isn't that a good thing and how rocks should be used? Are you saying that if both T and Z wants to destroy the rocks, they serve no function?

I think about it another way - a good player who reads the map well, will destroy the rocks at the right moment in the game to take advantage of the extra path. If you are defending your third as T or P as top in tvp close pos, for instance, you might take the left-hand-third and keep the rocks to better defend it. In cross pos you'd keep the rocks closest to you of the same reason, but still destroy those along the attacking path.

Am I being ignorant to some aspect of how those affect the game, perhaps?

I think yo are right that rocks aprioduce a strategic decision, e.g.on when to destroy them to gain excess, etc.

The way you use them is similar, both also very different to crevasse. On the one hand both maps give a quicker access towards area infront of the next base. but on the other hand you already have the open path to both sides.
at the same time it is similar to crevasse, but then it is not.

so how is this a problem?
the rocks cut the middle in pieces: this makes it even more hard to maneuvre slow terran forces
the rocks are a series of single rocks: zerg might be happier wih one or two small holes in this wall than terran. terran has to get them down quickly.


I do not say it is unbalanced, but it somehow makes me feel unsecure. you already have that highground obstacle and then the rocks...it is simply not elegant i guess. because it is more and obstacle than it adds something. I would rather only position one big dr there with holes left and right. then you have this extra decision, but it does not hinder movement completly early on.

After some thinking, I feel I shoudl remove the rocks. The big difference compared to Crevasse is that on my map it doesn't block close position closest path, but cross position. And you certainly don't need that on a 4p map. Also, it makes the high ground narrow path a more .. disturbing feature, pluss the reasons samro brought up.

So I'll remove the rocks and move on (unless someone has valid arguments to keep them).

There's been some recent posts on TL I'd like to quote, but I wont, since you can read and comment on TL instead, if you want to. I might bring some of those points up later in the process.

good solution. glad you picked up my argumentation.