Here you can find all finished and work in progress maps by Samrog/Samro225am.
To play these maps search for the maps title on battlenetEU.
All comments, questions and suggestions are appreciated.
Released
(2) Guardian's Grove v1.2 online on EU ===
My first map Guardian's Grove is a small and fast paced rotational symmetry map that has a rather simple layout with all expansions siuated in a circle around a central place. Positioning and controll of the map is important with an exceptional watchtower placement close to both high yield expansions that helps to scout movement along the alternative pathes. The map leaves it to the player to take controll of one of both high yield expansions before third and has an additional path between Natural and High Yield blocked with DRs. There is a dropzone close to the natural expansion that is connected to the centre via a wide. While the two-level cliff of both mains might help terran the map is balanced due to multiple options for attacking that makes manouvering important and balances out height advantages.
ANALYZER IMAGES
Summary
Shortest Path
SCREENSHOTS
Overview
Main
Nat
Third
High Yield
Drop @ Nat
anti-siege barricade at ramp
---------------------------
(2) Prophecies v1.4 online on EU ===
Prophecies features a unique layout. As my second 1on1 map with rotational symmetry it also has a High Yield on low ground that is connected to the opponents Natural via a DR blocked backdoor. With a narrower centre and multiple attractive options for early expansions on Nat, Fourth or High Yield, positioning and scouting is crucial. LoSBs close to the open Third and at the Ntural/High Yield backdoor and the watchtower placement that forces players to move into centre in order to peek into 'their own' high yield area produce intersting situations.
ANALYZER IMAGES
Summary
Shortes Path
SCREENSHOTS
Overview
Main
Nat
Third
Fourth
High Yield
Watchtower
Nat to High Yield backdoor
---------------------------
(4) Fate v1.1 online on EU ===
Fate, my third map, is my first try on a 4 playerstart map with a symmetrical layout that reminds of Lost Temple but is rather open: with two high yield expansions in the central area and two third and two fourth expansions on the mirroring axis players have to decide to expand towards or away from their opponent(s). One Xel'Naga watchtower at each end of the big cenral bridge (similar to LT, too) is not enough to take over control: players have to move around and scout because of alterantive pathes bigger but also longer than in LT. All three diferent setups for 1on1 play feature different distances. Works for 2on2 and FFA as well.
ANALYZER IMAGES
Summary
Shortest Path 9-3
Shortest Path 9-6
Shortest Path 9-12
SCREENSHOTS
Overview
Main
Nat
Third A
Third B
Fourth A
Fourth B
High Yield
Alternate Path 1
Alternate Path 2
Centre
---------------------------
(2) Tendency v1.1 online on EU ===
Tendency is my first symmetrical 2playerstart map. In my opinion there are two points of interest when designing such a map: 1. you need an interesting centre that gives access to all other areas 2. air distance should not be too short. This maps features an open third expansion on low ground with two ramps, one leads towards centre, one into the Natural. This additional entrance should not be considered a backdoor, because you can still position your army at he choke to control both entrances. It is really hard to wall your Natural off, though. With a triple vespene expansion on high ground that helps to control movement towards all other areas of the map, I think I have achieved an intersting centre. To counter any bold tries to take complete control their are two fourth expansions situated on a high ground separated by two chokes and connected to one of the two main attacking pathes with a wide ramp. There is an additional DR blocked ramp per side. Between the wide central ramp and the triple vespene expansion cliff you can find the single watchtower in this map. the watchtower helps to attack th highround in both directions. A high yield expansion between both Mains is far to reach by ground but close by air and is therefore blocked with DRs. The map's setup is unique and really works well.
The map's design is really basic and concentrated on forming pretty much everything only with cliffes and textures, adding very few doodads where needed to indicate blocked terrain or positioning of vespene and gold expansion.
So then if we choose to name god Jehovah or Yhwh that will be okay? Seems a little silly if you ask me.
unless you find a list with all banned words you just go trial and error while publishing the map. i had this problem with guardian's grove (god's grove). previously I had the word 'own' in my map's description ('...your own fate') and it was not possible to publish the map unless i took the word off the description.
silly? - yes.
do we have a choice? - no.
The Xel'Naga watch towers allow sight of the quickest path between the opponent and your gold expansion, can give a little sight into the gold expansion, watch the path to the fourth expansion, and watch the path to the back ramp of the third expansion.
I'm debating just making the 4th a little smaller, therefore pushing the minerals closer to the center and making it feel closer.
so do you expect that the main forces cover the area towards centre and players try to have more information and move a smaller force to xel'naga?
I think the xel'nagas can be used to create an area of conflict (centre position) or give vital info like realy control over an area that is otherwise really hard to control. if it only gives extra vision in an area that is kind of controlled anyway i am not to fond of the watchtowers.
have you tried moving them towards the gaps left and right of the bridge, sothat they overlook bridge and into gold? by that you can give players the feeling that they are really important and opponents will try to have control over both. just an idea.
there should be a real discussion about watchtowers. what do you think about the placement in my new map? i think they are devensively positioned, but to take control you have to go through the middle. you can not take this defensive bonus once you lost map control in the central area. this is a possibility for an interesting placement I think.
(edit: this is not an advertisment. i think it is a point to discuss)
[Map] (2) Prophecies - Version 1.0 / 19.09.2010 (EU)
1vs1 Melee Map - Beta Phase
YOU CAN PLAY THE BETA ON BATTLENET EU SEARCHING 'PROPHECIES'
main
nat
third
semi-island
Map Analyzer
Overview
Map size: 128 x 144
Nat attackable from two sides
Nat backdoor with destructable rocks, long double-choke and Line of Sight Blockers
tight centre with two Xel'Nagas and Sightblockers
Known Issues
WIP Texturing
all highgrounds are droppable right now. We will see ow suff works out. Likely will male cliff at Nat unwalkable for obvious reasons
I am quite confident with the positoning of the watchtowers (having one in centre does not give any additional info). also the double-choke between gold and natural(backdoor) works in my opinion.
some things I would like to have more feedback about:
LoSBs
dropable highround between gold and fourth expansion
are there any more suggestions for changes in the layout?
should the goldarea be smaller?
highround for gold area instead of lowground?
highround for fourth expansion to favour it over gold and have longer games?
should I set the third expansion a bit back (towards norh/south) to make it saver?
(edit: new images, texture update not yet included in version that is online)
what are the watchtowers for? one can see an attack coming from high yield are a little bit sooner but no additinal info than that given by this positon anyway. correct me if i am wrong?
other that that like the layout a lot. I love openness betwen centre and third. would be fun to have a protecting cliff there in front of third for though that is open for defensive or ofensive drops.
could be intereting to have north main/nat moved a bit to west and south main/nat a bit to east for quicker drops on gold/opponent's fourth and creepspread in these regions.
this would make better use of space and you have a more compact map.
from the highyield are siege tanks will dominate the centre
central path should be wider and/or the lakes a bit smaller, especially towards the centre
pathes at naturals do no have same size. player1's natural resources have to move one grid down!
likes
the extra level at the far expansions and at the first expansion that prevent spamming towards opponents moving at one of the outer pathes. I did that in my map, too (next version to come)
I think the backdoor is interesting: stones + LoSBs. that means one has to cover the base from the outside? many people will not like the backdoor, though as it does not provide quicker access but only another entrance
suggestions
X'N watchtowers should have an extra platform, probably instead of the placemnet of the upper third (towards centre) of the lake
main could be bigger
fix positioning of mineral patches to gain more space everywhere
other that that: looking forward to try this one out!
probably not intended, bt basically when you chose between n1 and n2 you also choose between a regular and an agressive stlye I think, because you can control the highyield from n2 (something I would have changed I think: no siegetank attacks from n2 into G)
it could be interesting to have a broader map, instead of the strong vertical direction with E2 more towards the equator of the map and a bit more to the outside, sothat one could decide to take n2 and then expand directly towards the opponent. this could also be a possibility for quicker games as E2 was not too far away.
I would like to play the map, but I have no NA key. This critic ist only theory on the overview picture.
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)
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?
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.
0
Here you can find all finished and work in progress maps by Samrog/Samro225am.
To play these maps search for the maps title on battlenetEU.
All comments, questions and suggestions are appreciated.
Released
(2) Guardian's Grove v1.2 online on EU ===
My first map Guardian's Grove is a small and fast paced rotational symmetry map that has a rather simple layout with all expansions siuated in a circle around a central place. Positioning and controll of the map is important with an exceptional watchtower placement close to both high yield expansions that helps to scout movement along the alternative pathes. The map leaves it to the player to take controll of one of both high yield expansions before third and has an additional path between Natural and High Yield blocked with DRs. There is a dropzone close to the natural expansion that is connected to the centre via a wide. While the two-level cliff of both mains might help terran the map is balanced due to multiple options for attacking that makes manouvering important and balances out height advantages.
ANALYZER IMAGES
Summary
Shortest Path
SCREENSHOTS
Overview
Main
Nat
Third
High Yield
Drop @ Nat
anti-siege barricade at ramp
---------------------------(2) Prophecies v1.4 online on EU ===
Prophecies features a unique layout. As my second 1on1 map with rotational symmetry it also has a High Yield on low ground that is connected to the opponents Natural via a DR blocked backdoor. With a narrower centre and multiple attractive options for early expansions on Nat, Fourth or High Yield, positioning and scouting is crucial. LoSBs close to the open Third and at the Ntural/High Yield backdoor and the watchtower placement that forces players to move into centre in order to peek into 'their own' high yield area produce intersting situations.
ANALYZER IMAGES
Summary
Shortes Path
SCREENSHOTS
Overview
Main
Nat
Third
Fourth
High Yield
Watchtower
Nat to High Yield backdoor
---------------------------(4) Fate v1.1 online on EU ===
Fate, my third map, is my first try on a 4 playerstart map with a symmetrical layout that reminds of Lost Temple but is rather open: with two high yield expansions in the central area and two third and two fourth expansions on the mirroring axis players have to decide to expand towards or away from their opponent(s). One Xel'Naga watchtower at each end of the big cenral bridge (similar to LT, too) is not enough to take over control: players have to move around and scout because of alterantive pathes bigger but also longer than in LT. All three diferent setups for 1on1 play feature different distances. Works for 2on2 and FFA as well.
ANALYZER IMAGES
Summary
Shortest Path 9-3
Shortest Path 9-6
Shortest Path 9-12
SCREENSHOTS
Overview
Main
Nat
Third A
Third B
Fourth A
Fourth B
High Yield
Alternate Path 1
Alternate Path 2
Centre
---------------------------(2) Tendency v1.1 online on EU ===
Tendency is my first symmetrical 2playerstart map. In my opinion there are two points of interest when designing such a map: 1. you need an interesting centre that gives access to all other areas 2. air distance should not be too short. This maps features an open third expansion on low ground with two ramps, one leads towards centre, one into the Natural. This additional entrance should not be considered a backdoor, because you can still position your army at he choke to control both entrances. It is really hard to wall your Natural off, though. With a triple vespene expansion on high ground that helps to control movement towards all other areas of the map, I think I have achieved an intersting centre. To counter any bold tries to take complete control their are two fourth expansions situated on a high ground separated by two chokes and connected to one of the two main attacking pathes with a wide ramp. There is an additional DR blocked ramp per side. Between the wide central ramp and the triple vespene expansion cliff you can find the single watchtower in this map. the watchtower helps to attack th highround in both directions. A high yield expansion between both Mains is far to reach by ground but close by air and is therefore blocked with DRs. The map's setup is unique and really works well.
The map's design is really basic and concentrated on forming pretty much everything only with cliffes and textures, adding very few doodads where needed to indicate blocked terrain or positioning of vespene and gold expansion.
ANALYZER IMAGES
Summary
Shortest Path
SCREENSHOTS
Overview
Main
Nat
Third
Fourth
Triple Vespene
High Yield
Watchtower
---------------------------Work in progress
t.b.a. ;)
0
(updated first post with images of wip texturing + very few doodads)
0
unless you find a list with all banned words you just go trial and error while publishing the map. i had this problem with guardian's grove (god's grove). previously I had the word 'own' in my map's description ('...your own fate') and it was not possible to publish the map unless i took the word off the description. silly? - yes. do we have a choice? - no.
0
so do you expect that the main forces cover the area towards centre and players try to have more information and move a smaller force to xel'naga? I think the xel'nagas can be used to create an area of conflict (centre position) or give vital info like realy control over an area that is otherwise really hard to control. if it only gives extra vision in an area that is kind of controlled anyway i am not to fond of the watchtowers. have you tried moving them towards the gaps left and right of the bridge, sothat they overlook bridge and into gold? by that you can give players the feeling that they are really important and opponents will try to have control over both. just an idea.
there should be a real discussion about watchtowers. what do you think about the placement in my new map? i think they are devensively positioned, but to take control you have to go through the middle. you can not take this defensive bonus once you lost map control in the central area. this is a possibility for an interesting placement I think.
(edit: this is not an advertisment. i think it is a point to discuss)
0
[Map] (2) Prophecies - Version 1.0 / 19.09.2010 (EU)
1vs1 Melee Map - Beta Phase
YOU CAN PLAY THE BETA ON BATTLENET EU SEARCHING 'PROPHECIES'
main
nat
third
semi-island
Map Analyzer
Overview
Known Issues
I am quite confident with the positoning of the watchtowers (having one in centre does not give any additional info). also the double-choke between gold and natural(backdoor) works in my opinion.
some things I would like to have more feedback about:
(edit: new images, texture update not yet included in version that is online)
0
what are the watchtowers for? one can see an attack coming from high yield are a little bit sooner but no additinal info than that given by this positon anyway. correct me if i am wrong?
other that that like the layout a lot. I love openness betwen centre and third. would be fun to have a protecting cliff there in front of third for though that is open for defensive or ofensive drops.
could be intereting to have north main/nat moved a bit to west and south main/nat a bit to east for quicker drops on gold/opponent's fourth and creepspread in these regions. this would make better use of space and you have a more compact map.
0
24h bump: guys, your comments helped a lot. I hope you check out the final version and hf.
0
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
0
problems
likes
suggestions
other that that: looking forward to try this one out!
0
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)
0
probably not intended, bt basically when you chose between n1 and n2 you also choose between a regular and an agressive stlye I think, because you can control the highyield from n2 (something I would have changed I think: no siegetank attacks from n2 into G) it could be interesting to have a broader map, instead of the strong vertical direction with E2 more towards the equator of the map and a bit more to the outside, sothat one could decide to take n2 and then expand directly towards the opponent. this could also be a possibility for quicker games as E2 was not too far away.
I would like to play the map, but I have no NA key. This critic ist only theory on the overview picture.
0
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)
0
concerning the scouting:
overlords then can move in via the 3rd from the centre. scouts moving by foot come in from ramp towards buildings.
0
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?
0
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.