EPTMap: (2)Cloud Kingdom - BW conversion - Page 5
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
CosmicHippo
United States547 Posts
| ||
|
Theeakoz
United States1114 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On February 22 2012 01:16 Sinedd wrote: I think its 3 in fact  lower, standard and high ground But, as OP said, high ground is unbuildable in this tileset. On February 22 2012 01:20 StarBrift wrote: I just realised how good this design is for BW and how bad it is for sc2 since they can't make maps with tight chokes without breaking the game. Cloud Kingdom is an ESV Map, got added to the GSL Map Pool, and got added to the official ladder after winning a Team Liquid mapmaking contest. It's pretty good in SC2. The blizzard Typhon Peaks was really bad due to tight chokes where you were supposed to flank from several chokes, but Cloud Kingdom does the concept way better. It's a very succesful and popular map. On February 22 2012 02:36 Megaliskuu wrote: Maps in BW just feel like thay have more space, I played a couple of games on CK on sc2, and in ZvP when we both had max armies it just felt cramped, although it is very good for flanks. BW maps flat out do have more open space, for various little balance reasons. CK is an unusally cramped map, though. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On February 21 2012 18:55 Ribbon wrote: I feel like that goes against the original design of the map. The idea is that the really short paths are awkward to get large armies through, and the good attack paths are longer, so you have to spit your army a bit to take advantage of all the flanking opportunities instead of 1Aing your army. BW doesn't have 1a problem for this map to try and fix, but I still think making too many attack paths too good hurts the map's identity a bit. Those paths are awkward on purpose. Well, with how well SC2 units clump and move up ramps, it's pretty common from what I've seen for players to attack up the ramps to the natural or third in the mid-game (definitely not late-game with maxed armies though). Right now the natural ramp is width 4 and the third ramp is width 5. I'm considering 2 options right now: 1. Keep the natural ramp width 4 and make the third ramp width 2. This would allow the natural to be attacked into relatively easily but still provide a significant defender's advantage, and the third would basically only be able to be attacked from the side along the winding path aside from very small forces/harassment. 2. Make both natural and third ramps width 3 (this is actually how the SC2 Cloud Kingdom is, but obviously it's easier to attack up those ramps in SC2 than BW). This would make attacking up both ramps possible but very difficult. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On February 22 2012 07:26 -NegativeZero- wrote: Well, with how well SC2 units clump and move up ramps, it's pretty common from what I've seen for players to attack up the ramps to the natural or third in the mid-game (definitely not late-game with maxed armies though). Well, the clumping makes splash damage really dangerous when moving through those ramps. Right now the natural ramp is width 4 and the third ramp is width 5. I'm considering 2 options right now: 1. Keep the natural ramp width 4 and make the third ramp width 2. This would allow the natural to be attacked into relatively easily but still provide a significant defender's advantage, and the third would basically only be able to be attacked from the side along the winding path aside from very small forces/harassment. 2. Make both natural and third ramps width 3 (this is actually how the SC2 Cloud Kingdom is, but obviously it's easier to attack up those ramps in SC2 than BW). This would make attacking up both ramps possible but very difficult. I think one of the reasons CK is such a popular map in SC2 is because it forces you to split up your army into squads. It's true that BW units don't clump, but I think it should be easy to attack those ramps in small numbers and hard to attack those ramps in big numbers, requiring you to either split your army or go the long way to attack the third from the side. This is a runby map, a counter map, and a flanking map, and I'd like the BW version to stay true to that as much as possible. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On February 22 2012 11:19 Ribbon wrote: I think one of the reasons CK is such a popular map in SC2 is because it forces you to split up your army into squads. It's true that BW units don't clump, but I think it should be easy to attack those ramps in small numbers and hard to attack those ramps in big numbers, requiring you to either split your army or go the long way to attack the third from the side. This is a runby map, a counter map, and a flanking map, and I'd like the BW version to stay true to that as much as possible. well said! | ||
GTR
51515 Posts
here is a fpvod of two of my games on this map (tvp and zvp). | ||
|
HaruHaru
United States988 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On February 22 2012 12:20 GTR wrote: http://www.twitch.tv/notyuna/b/309296072 here is a fpvod of two of my games on this map (tvp and zvp). + Show Spoiler + I like how, at least in the first game, you turtled on 200/200, and then the protoss made a bad engagement, and then you just kinda walked across the map to victory. Just like in real SC2! I'm legit curious to see if high level BW resembles SC2 more on these SC2 ports. That game was the first time I watched a BW game and went "Wow, if this were SC2, there'd be a lot more going on". I mean, obviously, you're not a professional and it was your first time on the map etc etc etc etc etc., but it just makes me more excited about having a BW tournament on these ports. I really want to see how the different games differ on the same maps like this. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E5Mjj.jpg) Download link (Old version is still there also) Changes: -3rd moved slightly closer to main -Gas in 3rd geyser reduced from 5000 to 1500 (I know several suggested making 3rd mineral only, I wanted to test out this less drastic change first) -Natural ramp narrowed from 4 to 3 width, destructible building removed -Third ramp narrowed from 5 to 3 width, destructible building added (to help defend early pushes) -Side (high ground) entrance to third narrowed -Both entrances to corner expansions narrowed (ramp from 3 to 2 width) | ||
|
Celestia
Mexico376 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Ozarugold
2716 Posts
And what about a mineral only on the high ground between 3 and 5 o clock expo and 9 and 11 o clock expo? Would that be a bad spot? Change the map too much? I'm not suggesting only asking, since I am a map maker too  ...albeit not a very good one -_- | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On February 23 2012 06:24 Celestia wrote: A SC2 map on BW? I thought your precious BW was too much for stuff like this... Lol, someone's butthurt. That post is like a black man walking up to a white man and crying about racism when the white man hasn't done anything. | ||
|
Ozarugold
2716 Posts
| ||
|
Piste
6181 Posts
| ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
| ||
|
Celestia
Mexico376 Posts
On February 23 2012 07:41 vOdToasT wrote: Lol, someone's butthurt. That post is like a black man walking up to a white man and crying about racism when the white man hasn't done anything. Meh, I was just being silly :D. What a great map, I hope we can have more maps like that. | ||
|
wishbones
Canada2600 Posts
http://www.mediafire.com/?admzxke9zyevp1a | ||
|
Amlitzer
United States471 Posts
| ||
|
zul
Germany5427 Posts
| ||
| ||
