|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
|
Looks very very nice, i'm curious as to how defensive mech would play out vs zerg and if slow pushing would work as good as destination.
|
Red base is a bit further from remaining ones, but I guess this may even add some spice to this map. Maybe you should move ramps to 3rd Gas expo a bit further from nat entrances? The map looks very mechable anyway. Blue main should be bigger IMO, but apart from this it's quite nice job.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On October 13 2009 23:19 Vekzel wrote:
Red base is a bit further from remaining ones, but I guess this may even add some spice to this map. Maybe you should move ramps to 3rd Gas expo a bit further from nat entrances? The map looks very mechable anyway. Blue main should be bigger IMO, but apart from this it's quite nice job.
The distance is actually roughly the same. Yeah blue should be slightly bigger, I guess I'll make it bigger at the bottom.
Not sure about position of 2nd gas expo ramp though.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
Are you deliberately making the nats a bitch to defend against mutas?
EDIT: Also is that a triforce I see 
|
On October 14 2009 00:00 Spenguin wrote:Are you deliberately making the nats a bitch to defend against mutas? EDIT: Also is that a triforce I see
I don't think Mutas are a problem, look at the amount of gas he put on the map, 1k gas on each geyser. 3 gas isn't enough for hive tech. If anything, T >> Z on this map. As expected from a Terran player who made the map of course
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On October 14 2009 00:06 AzureEye wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2009 00:00 Spenguin wrote:Are you deliberately making the nats a bitch to defend against mutas? EDIT: Also is that a triforce I see I don't think Mutas are a problem, look at the amount of gas he put on the map, 1k gas on each geyser. 3 gas isn't enough for hive tech. If anything, T >> Z on this map. As expected from a Terran player who made the map of course
???
1k gas?
they're all 5k
|
-on first glance, teal's minonly is farer away comparing to blue and red, and it's likely to have pathing issues when larger armies move there. overall, it seems to me you did a decent job on balancing distances.
-your naturals are very tight, did you test pathing in and out once you've build up an expansion and its defensive structures there? also, you NEED space behind the minerals. right now, neither turrets nor marines can do anything against mutalisks.
-the double gas expansions are ridiculous. they are SO precious and SO easy to defend. that isnt a good combination for dynamic gameplay.
-check mineral formations in every main. it's been a while that i've made maps, but i am quite sure your main minerals mine awkward and have unfortunate mining paths
-overall, pretty standard map, but i like 3player maps.
-decorate your map!
you can also visit BWMN for more suggestions and ideas
at least when i was active, there were many many skilled mappers. i used to visit that site very often.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On October 14 2009 00:14 flothefreak wrote:-on first glance, teal's minonly is farer away comparing to blue and red, and it's likely to have pathing issues when larger armies move there. overall, it seems to me you did a decent job on balancing distances. -your naturals are very tight, did you test pathing in and out once you've build up an expansion and its defensive structures there? also, you NEED space behind the minerals. right now, neither turrets nor marines can do anything against mutalisks. -the double gas expansions are ridiculous. they are SO precious and SO easy to defend. that isnt a good combination for dynamic gameplay. -check mineral formations in every main. it's been a while that i've made maps, but i am quite sure your main minerals mine awkward and have unfortunate mining paths -overall, pretty standard map, but i like 3player maps. -decorate your map! you can also visit BWMN for more suggestions and ideas at least when i was active, there were many many skilled mappers. i used to visit that site very often.
- gonna fix that
- not yet tasted (but i purposely added no space behind minerals)
- i said there's NO double gas expansion, read -_-
- ...? mineral layouts at the mains are from Destination (which have one of the best mineral pathing) (except for 3 o clock main, which is untested)
- ok
- needs moar doodad i guess
and bwmn barely help anyway
|
flothefreak!? where have you been?
|
On October 14 2009 00:19 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2009 00:14 flothefreak wrote:-on first glance, teal's minonly is farer away comparing to blue and red, and it's likely to have pathing issues when larger armies move there. overall, it seems to me you did a decent job on balancing distances. -your naturals are very tight, did you test pathing in and out once you've build up an expansion and its defensive structures there? also, you NEED space behind the minerals. right now, neither turrets nor marines can do anything against mutalisks. -the double gas expansions are ridiculous. they are SO precious and SO easy to defend. that isnt a good combination for dynamic gameplay. -check mineral formations in every main. it's been a while that i've made maps, but i am quite sure your main minerals mine awkward and have unfortunate mining paths -overall, pretty standard map, but i like 3player maps. -decorate your map! you can also visit BWMN for more suggestions and ideas at least when i was active, there were many many skilled mappers. i used to visit that site very often. - gonna fix that - not yet tasted (but i purposely added no space behind minerals) - i said there's NO double gas expansion, read -_- - ...? mineral layouts at the mains are from Destination (which have one of the best mineral pathing) (except for 3 o clock main, which is untested) - ok - needs moar doodad i guess and bwmn barely help anyway
You have a doodad geyser put in 9expo that makes it look like a 2xgas exp 
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On October 14 2009 03:45 Starparty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2009 00:19 konadora wrote:On October 14 2009 00:14 flothefreak wrote:-on first glance, teal's minonly is farer away comparing to blue and red, and it's likely to have pathing issues when larger armies move there. overall, it seems to me you did a decent job on balancing distances. -your naturals are very tight, did you test pathing in and out once you've build up an expansion and its defensive structures there? also, you NEED space behind the minerals. right now, neither turrets nor marines can do anything against mutalisks. -the double gas expansions are ridiculous. they are SO precious and SO easy to defend. that isnt a good combination for dynamic gameplay. -check mineral formations in every main. it's been a while that i've made maps, but i am quite sure your main minerals mine awkward and have unfortunate mining paths -overall, pretty standard map, but i like 3player maps. -decorate your map! you can also visit BWMN for more suggestions and ideas at least when i was active, there were many many skilled mappers. i used to visit that site very often. - gonna fix that - not yet tasted (but i purposely added no space behind minerals) - i said there's NO double gas expansion, read -_- - ...? mineral layouts at the mains are from Destination (which have one of the best mineral pathing) (except for 3 o clock main, which is untested) - ok - needs moar doodad i guess and bwmn barely help anyway You have a doodad geyser put in 9expo that makes it look like a 2xgas exp
there's one at 6 too
but they aren't mineable rofl
|
The Fuhrer is here! ALL HAIL!
Map is pretty standard and nothing wrong with it except:
Holy crap fix the area behind the naturals.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On October 14 2009 07:22 neobowman wrote:
The Fuhrer is here! ALL HAIL!
Map is pretty standard and nothing wrong with it except:
Holy crap fix the area behind the naturals.
;; okay...
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
Updated to 1.2, added space behind minerals at naturals
Hmm I think 3 o clock nat is siegable? I guess I'll fix that later when I return home.
|
I like it. Looks simple and very playable. I do wonder about how easily Terran will be able to take a 3rd, though.
|
It's a little too much like Athena without being any better.
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/190_Athena%202.jpg)
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On October 14 2009 08:40 3clipse wrote:
I like it. Looks simple and very playable. I do wonder about how easily Terran will be able to take a 3rd, though.
Maybe making 3rd's ramp wider and away from nat?
|
On October 14 2009 10:00 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2009 08:40 3clipse wrote:
I like it. Looks simple and very playable. I do wonder about how easily Terran will be able to take a 3rd, though. Maybe making 3rd's ramp wider and away from nat?
I wasn't implying that the 3rd would be too easy to take (even though I'm protoss, I swear I'm trying to be unbiased xD). I honestly have no idea. It's just a pretty big factor in balance and should be one of the first things to test, imo. Making it wider might be a good idea, but if it were further away I think it would be hell for terran to hold on to.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
Okay did some changes, major change would be widening of 2nd expo's ramp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/6329/3tranquility13.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/6921/3tranquility12.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4480/3tranquility11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4500/3tranquility10.jpg)
