[Map] 1vs1 Guardian's Grove - Version 1.2 / 15.09.2010 (EU)
Not on battlenet US yet. Please search GUARDIAN'S GROVE on battlenet EU
Map details:
Map size: 128 x 122
Number of players: 2
one base, one natural, one normal expansion and one high yield/gold expansion per player
each normal/blue resource spot provides 8 mineral and 2 vespin, high yield/gold provides 6 mineral and 1 vespin
2 Xel Naga watch towers between expansion (LoSBs) and high yield (ramp)
destructible rocks blocking high yield (4x4), between natural and high yield (2x4)
Map changes:
bigger Main and Gold
no more backdoor into Main
more space everywhere, especially in centre and around all minerals, some changes in layout
less trees, fixed collsions
X'N ramp turned 45° (facing north/south)
Main ramp turned 45°
bigger chokes to Main, Gold, X'N, dropzone at Nat
Main's choke halfway blocked by destructable rocks for easy wall at start but wide entrance in endgame
ramp to central area much wider, turned 45° (facing Nat) for quicker access to Nat/Main
architectural structure close to ramp (towards 3rd) to prevent mass siegetank spam
architectural structure close to X'N and 3rd for drop harassment or movement control
better texturing
Overview:
Map Analyzer:
none
Coming changes:
nothing planed yet
Comment:
The main idea was to create a detailed and good looking map that features a balanced melee gameplay. Altthough the design is based on the use of cliffs Zerg-players should not be underpowered. Therefore I made it possible to create multiple routes by destroying rocks in order to out-manouver the less mobile terrans. This is also the reason to have a shrine in the central battlefield. Zergs as well as Protoss should be able to switch the direction of their attack, retreat and strike back utilising the layout to their advance abusing the slow speed of most terran armies.
I decided on using two Xel'Naga watch towers. Neither is controlling the complete central area. They overlook the middle ground exactly to the shrine in its centre. They can be also used to check for movement to the expansion or the HighYield. That means you can only take control of the map by leading your forces down of the level1 cliff (natural and expansion) into the centre or even cross it to reach the second Xel'Naga.
There are 2 LoSBs per side. One screens the Xel'Naga from its side player. This should motivate the other sides's player to take the ramp and use "the other's" Xel'Naga. This is a little bit an experimental setup and I hope it works in an interesting way. The other is very close to the naturals face to face with the other sides Xel'Naga.
i would love to get the map to the us server.
i would like to puiblish it myself though to keep control over possibly following versions /modifications.
unsure about how to proceed.
any ideas?
2v2 layout: yes, I will think about it :)
happy you like layout/looks
Hi samro, I'm on EU and have tried this one out agaisnt comp. It looks nice but is too small. The main base needs more space and the passages (at least the one near the natural, right below the base), are too narrow. I am no pro player but a map maker myself (got a 2vs2 published on EU) and have gotten a sense for how wide passages should be. Also, you could cut some trees - its looks fine but makes the general impression of the map "blurry" and thus harder to read the map ingame. Just my opinion though. But most improtant point is that you should cut some trees for more playable space.
Please add me to friend list, Melt #801, I coudl help you test yoru maps and you could test mine.
I am working on the map. it does not play bad I think, but I tried to take all your input and reworked pretty much everything: i even re-mirrored the whole map.
here is a screenshot with all mayor changes marked in the map:
the 3rd now feels more like a real third and not like a second natural that is blocked and the map is more open overall while the central are stayed the same.
The average openness ist 4.5.
overall the idea was to have less pathes, more space, less destructable rocks and no backdoor to main.
Hmm, I'd widen the 3rd expos by chipping some space from the mains. Also, they're too easy to defend like this. Just a few defensive structures are enough to sandwitch any force from either the middle or XN between them and the NAT defense. It was better when there was an additional passage from the GOLD.
i understand your point - or rather the theory behind it.
more entrances into a base should mean more pressure and less turtling. a turling and slow terran army can't switch direction as zerg can.
the point though is, that the 3rd is very small in the current version so i wanted to create more space. also there was no real reason for taking the 3rd over Gold, because both were relativly unsafe. Now the 3rd is saver than Gold: choose your fate ;)
did you already play it online? what is your impression about the third? were you abke to actually use the extra pathes? I actually like "the old" layout more, but I did not see to much sense in extra pathes that were not used that much.
The current layoutdesign is made to receive more ideas from the community. the published map still is unchanged. I try to get as much of the input as possible while the map now evolves in small steps.
in the end i can re-beauty it. I know I can ;) but for the layout I am happy for any help.
Actually I like the state of the 3rd.
The 3rd is relatively far away from the natural and the main entrance, thus harder to defend against drops.
Personally I'd take the risk, destroy the rocks and go for gold as my 3rd base. Using the watchtower and one or two scouts I could easily reposition to secure my nat or gold.
A bit sad that there's no highground you can drop on to shell your enemy (like naturals from delta quadrant or lost temple). Basically the player's bases are always on the highground and thus harder to attack. Maybe add a small plateau near the 3rd to allow for tank/collossi/drop harrass?
Wouldn't be overpowered against Z since it wouldn't be the 2nd base, but the 3rd already.
PS: The large main in combination with the small choke is not the best, I think.
Scouting a large main is hard (overlords can get sniped, small choke can be blocked, reapers can only get up at once place and scans would have little chance of hitting a hidden building).
Might wanna have a larger choke at your main. I personally would like to see more broad chokes.
Would be especially zerg-friendly since they always have a hard time scouting when the toss/terra blocks the choke.
If it's a terran you can't even conveniently float your overlord in.
Actually I like the state of the 3rd.
The 3rd is relatively far away from the natural and the main entrance, thus harder to defend against drops.
Personally I'd take the risk, destroy the rocks and go for gold as my 3rd base. Using the watchtower and one or two scouts I could easily reposition to secure my nat or gold.
do you refer to the current state as it is published or the picture showing the new layout?
I think nat/gold with rocks work better in new version (picture) as the drop zone behind LoSBs is as well as nat and gold more open.
the 3rd without backdoor into main works better as now it is not as close to the main (via rocks) but therefore relativly well secured. the 3rd now is changed a lot as i got rid of two ramps.
A bit sad that there's no highground you can drop on to shell your enemy (like naturals from delta quadrant or lost temple). Basically the player's bases are always on the highground and thus harder to attack. Maybe add a small plateau near the 3rd to allow for tank/collossi/drop harrass?
Wouldn't be overpowered against Z since it wouldn't be the 2nd base, but the 3rd already.
I like the idea of drop harass. avtually there is some space close to the edge of the map where I could imagine to add a cliff to bring death to cute little drones.
do you think there should be a connection between 3rd/gold/main AND a cliff. Or would you suggest to add cliffs only if there were no extra pathes?
PS: The large main in combination with the small choke is not the best, I think.
Scouting a large main is hard (overlords can get sniped, small choke can be blocked, reapers can only get up at once place and scans would have little chance of hitting a hidden building).
Might wanna have a larger choke at your main. I personally would like to see more broad chokes.
Would be especially zerg-friendly since they always have a hard time scouting when the toss/terra blocks the choke.
If it's a terran you can't even conveniently float your overlord in.
all the time people commented on the base being too small. now it is too large? I also think it feels too open and I do not want terrans to stay up there forever, but a full terran build takes quite some space, so I do not know: a bit smaller again?
concerning chokes: the ramp to the central area is super wide, the ramp at the XN has a good size too, as it is not only for the watchtpwer but also for sneaky armies, ramp at natural is rather normal as is the one at the main. it is blockable with supplydepot+baracks+supplydepot, but it is a bit goofy somehow.
is there anything I could do to help zerg with opverlord scouting?
do you refer to the current state as it is published or the picture showing the new layout? I think nat/gold with rocks work better in new version (picture) as the drop zone behind LoSBs is as well as nat and gold more open. the 3rd without backdoor into main works better as now it is not as close to the main (via rocks) but therefore relativly well secured. the 3rd now is changed a lot as i got rid of two ramps.
I was talking about the new layout. Haven't actually played the map :3 So I'm just theorizing here. But I'm usually pretty good in theorizing.
I like the idea of drop harass. avtually there is some space close to the edge of the map where I could imagine to add a cliff to bring death to cute little drones. do you think there should be a connection between 3rd/gold/main AND a cliff. Or would you suggest to add cliffs only if there were no extra pathes?
I'd suggest cliffs accessible only through air - if that's what you mean.
all the time people commented on the base being too small. now it is too large? I also think it feels too open and I do not want terrans to stay up there forever, but a full terran build takes quite some space, so I do not know: a bit smaller again? concerning chokes: the ramp to the central area is super wide, the ramp at the XN has a good size too, as it is not only for the watchtpwer but also for sneaky armies, ramp at natural is rather normal as is the one at the main. it is blockable with supplydepot+baracks+supplydepot, but it is a bit goofy somehow. is there anything I could do to help zerg with opverlord scouting?
I'm not actually complaining about the base's size. I was just commenting on a problem that happens with the combination of base size + ramp size.
I think the plateau's size is good, considering that there are few other places on the map where you could conveniently build more stuff.
My suggestion is to increase the size of the main base ramp by 1. It'll make walling harder and allow players to sneak in a scout much easier. That'd get rid of the zerg's scouting problem, too.
It's also not really much of an imbalance. Terran learned to cope without a small choke. Protoss never really had a problem with it and Zerg can't wall anyway.
My suggestion is to increase the size of the main base ramp by 1. It'll make walling harder and allow players to sneak in a scout much easier. That'd get rid of the zerg's scouting problem, too.
It's also not really much of an imbalance. Terran learned to cope without a small choke. Protoss never really had a problem with it and Zerg can't wall anyway.
In that case the main resources would need to be moved further away from the ramp as they would make the base very vulnerable against rushes. If you also remove the statues that currently occupy the places where the main-to-3rd ramps used to be it would make it a lot easier to harass with reapers.
after some testing I have to say that I do not like the layout shown a few post above. gameplay is more static and more predictable. I think it will work well for a 4-player(startingposition)map though. I will start working on it once i', happy with the 1vs1 version.
upcoming changes of 1vs1 guardian grove (version as published on battlenet, picture at beginning of thread) will include:
bigger Main and Gold
no more backdoor into Main
more space everywhere, especially around all minerals, some changes in layout
less trees, fixed collsions
X'N ramp turned 45° (facing north/south)
Main ramp turned 45° (like picture above but wider)
bigger chokes to Main, Gold, X'N, dropzone at Nat
ramp to central area much wider, turned 45° (facing Nat) for quicker access to Nat/Main
architectural structure close to ramp (towards 3rd) to prevent mass siegetank spam
architectural structure close to 3rd for drop harassment
better texturing
@rade01 + s3rious: i will post a picture of the main. hope you can help me with rampsize-mineraldistance-ratio :D
thanks for your input and interest! it gets me going back at the map and rethink stuff. seriously. i appreciate your input. i am a noob concerning sc. no idea why this map seems to turn out well. :)
[edit:]
another thing i am playing around with: destructable stones halfway blocking the main's ramp.they work like a normal wall off but unlike supply or rax they cannot be repaired by scv. once they are gone the Main's ramp is bigger than the usual ramps. what do you think? (you read it here first)
[edit:] another thing i am playing around with: destructable stones halfway blocking the main's ramp.they work like a normal wall off but unlike supply or rax they cannot be repaired by scv. once they are gone the Main's ramp is bigger than the usual ramps. what do you think? (you read it here first)
Hmmm, I've never even seen anybody try it like that. In theory, if you place the rocks a bit lower on the ramp so that the edge of their placement box is not the same as the edge of the ramp's placement restriction edge (as demonstrated on the image below) you would achieve a ramp that's hard to wall off but which still chokes large armies.
However, if you make it touch the edge, then the remaining gap is easy to wall off quickly and the scouting problem that s3rius mentioned would persist.
Interesting things you did with the main rocks, but to be honest, they never actually help or wound any player. They will probably help out in some rushes, but only just.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
EDIT: NEW VERSION
[Map] 1vs1 Guardian's Grove - Version 1.2 / 15.09.2010 (EU)
Not on battlenet US yet. Please search GUARDIAN'S GROVE on battlenet EU
Map details:
Map changes:
Overview: Map Analyzer:
Coming changes:
Comment:
The main idea was to create a detailed and good looking map that features a balanced melee gameplay. Altthough the design is based on the use of cliffs Zerg-players should not be underpowered. Therefore I made it possible to create multiple routes by destroying rocks in order to out-manouver the less mobile terrans. This is also the reason to have a shrine in the central battlefield. Zergs as well as Protoss should be able to switch the direction of their attack, retreat and strike back utilising the layout to their advance abusing the slow speed of most terran armies.
I decided on using two Xel'Naga watch towers. Neither is controlling the complete central area. They overlook the middle ground exactly to the shrine in its centre. They can be also used to check for movement to the expansion or the HighYield. That means you can only take control of the map by leading your forces down of the level1 cliff (natural and expansion) into the centre or even cross it to reach the second Xel'Naga.
There are 2 LoSBs per side. One screens the Xel'Naga from its side player. This should motivate the other sides's player to take the ramp and use "the other's" Xel'Naga. This is a little bit an experimental setup and I hope it works in an interesting way. The other is very close to the naturals face to face with the other sides Xel'Naga.
Download: You can find the map on battlenet EU. SC2Mapster: http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/guardiansgrove/
I hope you enjoy the map. Have fun and please leave a comment!
[Edit: I made an additional release thread, because due to blizzard's publishing system the map had to be renamed]
Could you possibly publish this on the US server? Or get someone else to?
I would also like to see the same layout but with a 2v2 format! Map seems perfect for it.
@SaucySC: Go
i would love to get the map to the us server. i would like to puiblish it myself though to keep control over possibly following versions /modifications. unsure about how to proceed. any ideas?
2v2 layout: yes, I will think about it :) happy you like layout/looks
Hi samro, I'm on EU and have tried this one out agaisnt comp. It looks nice but is too small. The main base needs more space and the passages (at least the one near the natural, right below the base), are too narrow. I am no pro player but a map maker myself (got a 2vs2 published on EU) and have gotten a sense for how wide passages should be. Also, you could cut some trees - its looks fine but makes the general impression of the map "blurry" and thus harder to read the map ingame. Just my opinion though. But most improtant point is that you should cut some trees for more playable space.
Please add me to friend list, Melt #801, I coudl help you test yoru maps and you could test mine.
I am working on the map. it does not play bad I think, but I tried to take all your input and reworked pretty much everything: i even re-mirrored the whole map.
here is a screenshot with all mayor changes marked in the map:
the 3rd now feels more like a real third and not like a second natural that is blocked and the map is more open overall while the central are stayed the same. The average openness ist 4.5.
overall the idea was to have less pathes, more space, less destructable rocks and no backdoor to main.
what do you think?
Hmm, I'd widen the 3rd expos by chipping some space from the mains. Also, they're too easy to defend like this. Just a few defensive structures are enough to sandwitch any force from either the middle or XN between them and the NAT defense. It was better when there was an additional passage from the GOLD.
i understand your point - or rather the theory behind it. more entrances into a base should mean more pressure and less turtling. a turling and slow terran army can't switch direction as zerg can.
the point though is, that the 3rd is very small in the current version so i wanted to create more space. also there was no real reason for taking the 3rd over Gold, because both were relativly unsafe. Now the 3rd is saver than Gold: choose your fate ;)
did you already play it online? what is your impression about the third? were you abke to actually use the extra pathes? I actually like "the old" layout more, but I did not see to much sense in extra pathes that were not used that much.
The current layoutdesign is made to receive more ideas from the community. the published map still is unchanged. I try to get as much of the input as possible while the map now evolves in small steps.
in the end i can re-beauty it. I know I can ;) but for the layout I am happy for any help.
Actually I like the state of the 3rd.
The 3rd is relatively far away from the natural and the main entrance, thus harder to defend against drops.
Personally I'd take the risk, destroy the rocks and go for gold as my 3rd base. Using the watchtower and one or two scouts I could easily reposition to secure my nat or gold.
A bit sad that there's no highground you can drop on to shell your enemy (like naturals from delta quadrant or lost temple). Basically the player's bases are always on the highground and thus harder to attack. Maybe add a small plateau near the 3rd to allow for tank/collossi/drop harrass?
Wouldn't be overpowered against Z since it wouldn't be the 2nd base, but the 3rd already.
PS: The large main in combination with the small choke is not the best, I think.
Scouting a large main is hard (overlords can get sniped, small choke can be blocked, reapers can only get up at once place and scans would have little chance of hitting a hidden building).
Might wanna have a larger choke at your main. I personally would like to see more broad chokes.
Would be especially zerg-friendly since they always have a hard time scouting when the toss/terra blocks the choke.
If it's a terran you can't even conveniently float your overlord in.
do you refer to the current state as it is published or the picture showing the new layout? I think nat/gold with rocks work better in new version (picture) as the drop zone behind LoSBs is as well as nat and gold more open. the 3rd without backdoor into main works better as now it is not as close to the main (via rocks) but therefore relativly well secured. the 3rd now is changed a lot as i got rid of two ramps.
I like the idea of drop harass. avtually there is some space close to the edge of the map where I could imagine to add a cliff to bring death to cute little drones. do you think there should be a connection between 3rd/gold/main AND a cliff. Or would you suggest to add cliffs only if there were no extra pathes?
all the time people commented on the base being too small. now it is too large? I also think it feels too open and I do not want terrans to stay up there forever, but a full terran build takes quite some space, so I do not know: a bit smaller again? concerning chokes: the ramp to the central area is super wide, the ramp at the XN has a good size too, as it is not only for the watchtpwer but also for sneaky armies, ramp at natural is rather normal as is the one at the main. it is blockable with supplydepot+baracks+supplydepot, but it is a bit goofy somehow. is there anything I could do to help zerg with opverlord scouting?
I was talking about the new layout. Haven't actually played the map :3 So I'm just theorizing here. But I'm usually pretty good in theorizing.
I'd suggest cliffs accessible only through air - if that's what you mean.
I'm not actually complaining about the base's size. I was just commenting on a problem that happens with the combination of base size + ramp size.
I think the plateau's size is good, considering that there are few other places on the map where you could conveniently build more stuff.
My suggestion is to increase the size of the main base ramp by 1. It'll make walling harder and allow players to sneak in a scout much easier. That'd get rid of the zerg's scouting problem, too.
It's also not really much of an imbalance. Terran learned to cope without a small choke. Protoss never really had a problem with it and Zerg can't wall anyway.
In that case the main resources would need to be moved further away from the ramp as they would make the base very vulnerable against rushes. If you also remove the statues that currently occupy the places where the main-to-3rd ramps used to be it would make it a lot easier to harass with reapers.
after some testing I have to say that I do not like the layout shown a few post above. gameplay is more static and more predictable. I think it will work well for a 4-player(startingposition)map though. I will start working on it once i', happy with the 1vs1 version.
upcoming changes of 1vs1 guardian grove (version as published on battlenet, picture at beginning of thread) will include:
@rade01 + s3rious: i will post a picture of the main. hope you can help me with rampsize-mineraldistance-ratio :D
thanks for your input and interest! it gets me going back at the map and rethink stuff. seriously. i appreciate your input. i am a noob concerning sc. no idea why this map seems to turn out well. :)
[edit:] another thing i am playing around with: destructable stones halfway blocking the main's ramp.they work like a normal wall off but unlike supply or rax they cannot be repaired by scv. once they are gone the Main's ramp is bigger than the usual ramps. what do you think? (you read it here first)
Hmmm, I've never even seen anybody try it like that. In theory, if you place the rocks a bit lower on the ramp so that the edge of their placement box is not the same as the edge of the ramp's placement restriction edge (as demonstrated on the image below) you would achieve a ramp that's hard to wall off but which still chokes large armies.
However, if you make it touch the edge, then the remaining gap is easy to wall off quickly and the scouting problem that s3rius mentioned would persist.
actually I wanted 1. easy wall off on really big ramp in early game 2. easy access and wide open choke in end game (except for buildings)
@Samro225am: Go
Then make sure the rocks are high enough on the ramp.
EDIT: NEW VERSION
[Map] 1vs1 Guardian's Grove - Version 1.2 / 15.09.2010 (EU)
Not on battlenet US yet. Please search GUARDIAN'S GROVE on battlenet EU
Map details:
Map changes:
http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/guardiansgrove/ more pictures
24h bump: guys, your comments helped a lot. I hope you check out the final version and hf.
@Samro225am: Go
Interesting things you did with the main rocks, but to be honest, they never actually help or wound any player. They will probably help out in some rushes, but only just.