EPT[Map] Viscosity - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66063 Posts
| ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3359 Posts
To me those bridges stick out and look ugly, regular terrain would imo look better. Are the crystal-blocked paths tight like bluestorm nat path? If not, maybe just use terrain or a doodad to tighten the path, the crystals look out of place to me. I think I'd either give the min onlys gas or put them on highground and give them a ramp, they seem very vulnerable for their relative lack of economic and strategic/positional worth. I don't like the water/cliff in the middle that tightens the path out of the nat into the middle. I agree that the middle would be too open without this, but I think it feels awkward with it, that you should do something different with the middle than this. You're making main2main distances longer this way, I don't see any real reason why that would be advantageous. Just, I think the middle needs a fair amount of thought and work. Except in corners vs corners there's little reason to use most of the middle, as all of the expansions are on the extreme sides. This differs from a similar map Tornado, where the middle is needed to use because the side-oriented paths are fairly tight and treacherous (the highground can be particularly nasty at times) Overall the shapes of things feel awkward to me, think you could go over everything and make it more shapely. Often this means rounder. Just compare the shapes of your nats, mains, and expos with that of promaps. For example, your gas expos seem too spacious. What's the point of that excess space? It's hard to attack so it's not like players will fill the extra space with defense. They've got more than enough room to do that already, even if it was a particularly vulnerable expansion, which it isn't. Though, if the paths are tight, this just forces players to attack through drops, and extra space like that makes it more difficult to defend drops. Kind going along with shape, I think the map is too flat. I think you need more altitudal variety. I think decoration could be better just generally. You've just got kind of ugly splooches of different terrain here and there. I like your doodad use though, except for the mass of trees to the right of bottom left's nat. As far as balance/gameplay go... I think the gas expos seem very awkward for z. Since they'll take nats or mains instead it probably doesn't matter, but it seems silly to make those relatively easily accessible and nearby expansions significantly less viable than the farther bases. Atleast on Fighting Spirit you have a viable choice between taking a main/nat or the gas expo first. I don't think I like the gas expos. If you wanted tight paths, might be easier to have made them high dirt and give them 815 ramps. I don't think this encourages low tech unit use however, I think it just makes them semi-island expos that you attack by dropping. Overall map feels like Tornado with semi-island gas expos to me. So I suppose in that sense you've succeeded in making a macro-oriented map, but I don't think that's too difficult to accomplish. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66063 Posts
- Yeah, I've noticed I have a tenancy to use those doodads at the edge of the mains. Also, the reason why this map has a bit of difference between top left/btm right and top right/btm left is that I totally took no reference from any other maps at all. I guess this is something I should and could work on. - Just looking at the minimap it kind of is, but in actual gameplay I didn't find it that outstanding (as ugly). - Yes, I was thinking of how I should do that. But Temple terrain is terrible, which didn't really leave me with a lot of choices. - High ground seems like a good idea. *nods about other parts* It's hard to attack so it's not like players will fill the extra space with defense. - Didn't have this in mind, so I think I'll do some re-sizing. That was a very informative post, will take a lot of rethinking and consideration into the next version ^_^ | ||
| ||
