The Planetary Workshop

Icarus Flight (or just Icarus? ) WIP



Heavily WIP.

Sam pointed out that a 4p relfected with viable close position spawns are the only worthy challenge to go for if you're about to make a 4p reflected, and I agreed.

I've made different versions of the map within the map itself just to compare possible layouts to go for. It's supposed to be reflected symetry with all spawn positions available. Close nat2nat should be about 120 and long about 140 - at least that's the goal.

OUT OF DATE:


In this image, A is two suggestons of main-nat layouts and B is two third-layouts.

Published on EU as Icarus Flight if you want to test it ingame. Please do


Facts

All cross- and short position- spawns are possible.

Playable size: 160x160
Bases: 14 (12 regular, 2 gold)
Main size: 25 CCs
Nat2Nat: 122 and 126 close, 145 long

ANALYSER:

Overview


1-7

2-1

8-1


Earlier versions / progression

why does nobody listen to me?

as i already pointed out, having the XWT on the inside of the centre gives one player the advantage over both towers. you can't have one for blue and one for red. it is two or nothing once army size increases.

in XNC you have to take gold when the opponent takes gold. here you can't take gold, if the other player is able to kind of.

you might be better of with metalopolis like high yield bases.

i tried similar stuff with decline and he 4p before. it is just really difficult to fit in two interesting bases and two XWT. take a look at decline. decline has its problems, but i think it solves this problem a bit better.

http://imgur.com/l6YWa.jpg

i prefer the top right half.
bottom left would work better if you shrinked down the map some more.
i also think you could actually make the middle pathable, so you have a path that doesn't lead through a gold base that will possibly secured by a pf and siege tanks. it would also shorten the cross positions a bit which seem a bit long right now

what is the overall size?

why is cross position so incredible long?
cross position would have to be disabled if it actually was 160 in the end! (which would be bad, i think) (see my suggestions at the end of my post)




I
the second entrance that makes a second entrance is a nice idea, but only as a backdoor and not when it can be controlled from above. use this idea in another map and put rocks into it. because the way you use it now makes ForgeFE impossible and makes fun of the wall in you showed in the image

II
a second ramp in front of the space where you would have the wall in? i do not understand this at all. what is your idea here?

III
i like the visual appearance of this structure! it makes the third less open, but probably a bit too safe. imagine siegtanks on the main controllling the complete chocke!

IV
same applies to both of the pods: the ramp look like double+triple on the left and a quadruple on the right side. the size four ramp might be ok, the two ramp feature does not add anything here, except toss-imba i think. oh, and it takes away space you might need somewhere else!

V
the space to the XWT is really narrow. I think it is a good idea and mechanic really, to help secure the tower and keep the highground. but this does not help with attacking the highground. very important earea.
a problem that is conected to this: you cannot really walk past the highground. this makes the highround really important.
i love you you think alot about how structure of the map really designs how the game is played, but it almost feels a bit over the top. almost like a map for competitive deathmatch!
another problem (more on the right side pod) you cannot quickly move path the pod. like: not at all really. i am not saying this is bad.

VI
siegeable third? unsure if this is on purpose.

VII
you always have to move past the gold, because there is no connection in its back.
i think this is a bit problematic. It does not really affect the long cross distance, but everything has a choke everywhere so an extra path for run bys could be nice.

VIII
very nice design here. i love it. but it takes away lots of space (see VII)



"verdict":
all in al i think the map looks cramped. possibly too small (i don't think so though). maybe you want to put to many good ideas into one map?

here is enough interesting stuff for two different maps at least.


suggestions:

1. take away the backdoor idea

2. make the pod easier to use and decide how yu wnat it to be used (atackable or not? maybe you could use LoSBs to allow taking the tower and then attack the pod. so the highround should not see the tower to make it work.

3. the structure close to the pod could be longer, so that it extends out into the fog a bit, then you cut a pathway into this and texture it accordngly. that way it is like a gate, looks nice but does not hinder gameplay to much.

4.make a bridge over the centre that gives passage to small units, sothat scouts reach the other base quicker.
please check the time an overlords needs to spot cross position.

*Thanks a lot Sam!



Added to OP. 160x160, like Marshlands.



I opened the middle now, so is much shorter, but 148 nat2nat is still too long.. or?



I will keep this thought aleways when I work on this map. Simplify, perhaps. Still half of the feature swill be gone when I actually make it symetric.



Testing another backdoor idea. What do you think? I don't know if it's possibel to make a map without a nat backdoor anymore. Nowadays, ppl are not even using rocks beacuse of void harrass possibilites. I supose one wide choke must be very wide to not leave the nat "too safe"?




I want them to be attackable and countered by the XNT somewhat, but I also want them to make the thirds dangerous. I dont want them to be too small. If I cant make them feel like a good feature, I'll remake the entire middle of the map.




Nice idea. Added. Only a open-gate doodad is missing




What time is OK? The nat2nat cross is 148 atm, and fly path is 143.

---




I made a middle lane, that is only 50% siegable from each of the XNT balconies. Would you prefer a wider lane, so that one can take a 3base-army through quickly? The idea with keeping it small is to provide a risky posssibility for faster counter-attacks (148 nat2nat in cross atm) but suggest that you should go around otherwise. You could also pass with an army if you control both XNTs and know the path is safe.

I added rocks and LOSB to make the area more dangerous and to keep the gold bases apart. The rocks only block armies, it leaves a 2 AU gap.



Maybe the lane shoudl be wider, the rocks a huge one blocking. Affects cross nat2nat distance though.

I think if you could move the gold a bit back without changing the paths (because of close spawn rush distance). This would provide much more space in the low ground middle area for everything.

also the middle is choked for no reason really. in a way you eiher make a centralized map with difficult gold bases or not, but do not make a structure that is important and then put stuff in the players way.

beside moving the gold away a bit i would put the ramps down to this area one unit back, so that the ramps match the ramps of the two pods to the left and right.

the space of the xel naga is unclear to me. how far does it reach really? what do you want it to see? where do the two towers overlap / what is shared information and what is not known to both?

als the path leading to it: is the the small or also big units that can go there? can it be controlled from above from on top of the pods or should it be used against the pods (than you need some LoSBs). e.g. can a siegtank sit on the pod and on at the tower and what is their reach?

then the space between pod and mains: it is strange really. i did not think about this too much, but my feeling says: make it lowground and take away the extra ramp + make the one ramp per side bigger and block the top with rocks. what is this for? 1. The third is safer, because you take the long way around via lowground to attack third 2. you wnat to use the pod to your advantage - get rid of the rocks and become easier to attack. not sure if this is needed, but might be interesting.