EPTMap: (2)Cloud Kingdom - BW conversion - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
wishbones
Canada2600 Posts
| ||
|
wishbones
Canada2600 Posts
| ||
|
Gao Xi
Hong Kong5178 Posts
Reminds me of Sin chupung ryeong and bloody ridge sorta. | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
| ||
|
Piege
United Kingdom128 Posts
| ||
|
imEnex
Canada500 Posts
| ||
|
NuclearWINtr
United States125 Posts
Superouman's suggestions seemed accurate. | ||
|
lFrost
United States295 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On February 21 2012 13:44 Ribbon wrote: Looking at the original, the third is actually a lot harder to take in this version because the embiggened main pushes it very far away. Looking at the original, I can barely distinguish the terrain. Seriously its like a blob of purple there, some blue there. It resembles too much like my little cousin's playdoh... | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On February 21 2012 13:50 Xiphos wrote: Looking at the original, I can barely distinguish the terrain. Seriously its like a blob of purple there, some blue there. It resembles too much like my little cousin's playdoh... Yeah, the BW version certainly makes a bunch nicer thumbnail. I'm surprised at how clean the BW version looks, especially since other SC2->BW ports haven't looked much better like that. Maybe because Cloud Kingdom has more detailing on it that looks pretty smushy in a thumbnail? I never thought it was ugly playing it. Here's a nice map analysis. It's aimed at the SC2 version, but it's basically the same map, and the analysis is only on expansions and key areas and general-purpose stuff that applies to both games. The purpose of the SC2 map is to punish "SC2" gameplay (1A) and reward BW-style gameplay (splitting your army up to attack from multiple angles), so I'm actually really excited as to how a map designed to reward more BW style and fewer units in a control group and all that work in the actual BW. I thing the BW version's mains are maybe too big? It looks a lot bigger than, say, FS or Python, and that's pushing the third base away. Any reason the main is surrounded by a wall instead of being higher ground? Also, are you planning to make any other BW ports of the better ICCUP/GSL maps? | ||
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
I would love to see this in Ice tileset though, we have enough of twilight maps this season  | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
 On February 21 2012 11:42 wishbones wrote: http://www.mediafire.com/?nf5x1jo3tv35xd2 Thanks for this, is it ok if I upload this version as the obs map on broodwarmaps.net? On February 21 2012 14:42 Ribbon wrote: I thing the BW version's mains are maybe too big? It looks a lot bigger than, say, FS or Python, and that's pushing the third base away. Any reason the main is surrounded by a wall instead of being higher ground? Also, are you planning to make any other BW ports of the better ICCUP/GSL maps? I'll definitely reduce the size of the mains a bit. The mains aren't on high ground because the highest level of terrain on this tileset (the one used to create the wall) is all unbuildable. And yes, I do plan on converting some more maps when I have the time - but first, I'd like to concentrate on editing this one. So, based on everyone's comments, here's what I need to change: -move 3rd closer to main -make 3rd mineral only (an alternative would be to reduce the amount of gas in the geyser to 1000 or something) -narrow the entrance to the natural -narrow the entrance to the third -make a 3rd gas somehow easier to secure for zerg (assuming the current 3rd is now mineral only) What I'm thinking right now for the last one is to narrow both chokes to the top left and bottom right bases so you can defend this with lurkers/sunkens more easily, combined with the mineral only creating a situation almost like the top/bottom of Polaris Rhapsody. The problem is that the base might be too far to take as a 3rd gas for zerg. Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open). The advantage of narrowing the ramp by the natural would be that as the game goes on, larger armies would have to push out from progressively farther places (first the natural ramp, then the 3rd ramp, then finally all the way around the winding high ground) - sort of like Aztec minus the winding high ground part. But the advantage of narrowing the ramp by the 3rd would be that it makes it easier to defend, and I do agree that the third is too exposed now. Thoughts? | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 21 2012 15:34 -NegativeZero- wrote: Thanks for all the compliments, I wasn't expecting this map copy to be so positively received Thanks for this, is it ok if I upload this version as the obs map on broodwarmaps.net? I'll definitely reduce the size of the mains a bit. The mains aren't on high ground because the highest level of terrain on this tileset (the one used to create the wall) is all unbuildable. And yes, I do plan on converting some more maps when I have the time - but first, I'd like to concentrate on editing this one. So, based on everyone's comments, here's what I need to change: -move 3rd closer to main -make 3rd mineral only (an alternative would be to reduce the amount of gas in the geyser to 1000 or something) -narrow the entrance to the natural -narrow the entrance to the third -make a 3rd gas somehow easier to secure for zerg (assuming the current 3rd is now mineral only) What I'm thinking right now for the last one is to narrow both chokes to the top left and bottom right bases so you can defend this with lurkers/sunkens more easily, combined with the mineral only creating a situation almost like the top/bottom of Polaris Rhapsody. The problem is that the base might be too far to take as a 3rd gas for zerg. Also, I don't know whether to narrow the ramp by the natural or the 3rd (I don't want to do both, as I'd like to keep more than one viable attack path open). The advantage of narrowing the ramp by the natural would be that as the game goes on, larger armies would have to push out from progressively farther places (first the natural ramp, then the 3rd ramp, then finally all the way around the winding high ground) - sort of like Aztec minus the winding high ground part. But the advantage of narrowing the ramp by the 3rd would be that it makes it easier to defend, and I do agree that the third is too exposed now. Thoughts? If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe? idk if it'd work. Only map I can think of with a double gas is Longinus. | ||
|
Bisu-Fan
Russian Federation3329 Posts
But this map is really aesthetically pleasing ~ :D But don't listen to me, i'm a noob and I've never analyzed a map... | ||
|
Bisu-Fan
Russian Federation3329 Posts
On February 21 2012 16:06 Kimaker wrote: If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe? idk if it'd work. Only map I can think of with a double gas is Longinus. Don't forget Outisider!!! That made for some of the most epic games!!! :D | ||
Harem
United States11390 Posts
On February 21 2012 16:06 Kimaker wrote: If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe? idk if it'd work. Only map I can think of with a double gas is Longinus. Odd-eye and Polaris Rhapsody also have this concept with corner double gasses. | ||
|
EffectS
Belgium795 Posts
| ||
|
Bayyne
United States1967 Posts
| ||
|
moopie
12605 Posts
On February 21 2012 16:06 Kimaker wrote: If you do make the 3rd a mineral only, but want to compensate for the "harder" to get gas, you could make the corner bases double gas? O_o? maybe? Won't 3 / 9 be harder to hold than the corner expos? | ||
| ||
