|
|
|
Strange map, thought it was for 4 players at first.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
|
Why is it not a 4 player map? Is there a reason to want to force those starting postions?
|
I might force more of a different style in this map. Now air dominance is really important in certain match-ups. Reminds me of Ragnarok actually, especially with the vertical spawns.
|
Seems kinda imbalanced TvP. I'd suggest diagonal positions to resolve that, or add unbuildable terrain between those bridges between the expos, and in front of the expos, otherwise I could just make a depo wall and safely push to the toss. Or is the gray area in one of the picasa pics unbuildable?
Also, that wall at natural is a bit too wide for the PvZ wall imo. 12p speedling runby <3.
|
wow nice mmap, and why no 4 player map lol?
|
The maps seems okay. Ah didnt do any bug checkings though.
On November 10 2012 03:50 quirinus wrote:
Seems kinda imbalanced TvP. I'd suggest diagonal positions to resolve that, or add unbuildable terrain between those bridges between the expos, and in front of the expos, otherwise I could just make a depo wall and safely push to the toss. Or is the gray area in one of the picasa pics unbuildable?
Also, that wall at natural is a bit too wide for the PvZ wall imo. 12p speedling runby <3.
Yes ah suppose the grey area is unbuildable.
As for the pvz, ah also like tight walls for protoss. Tighter than these. But ah play protoss mainly and ah like beeing safe at start  . Perhaps other protoss's wont mind it.
|
Seems Terran favoured because of that easy to get third gas. And then you can split the map easily from there. 12 and 6 needs to be only one base that is further away from Terran, or those bases need to be mineral only.
Edit: Actually, it would probably be fine if the center was just more open.
|
United States10530 Posts
ground zero 2.0
very nice map! :D
|
Looks good to me! xD The name is familiar though, if only I could remember where I've seen it before.
|
@sheaRZerg sabas123 quirinus and vOdToasT
My aim for this map was perfection in two ways; perfect gameplay and perfect balance.
|
Interesting ! I would like to test it.
|
|
|
It's a fun map, have played a few games on it.
|
I thought this was 4player with some very interesting asymmetric ramps. =\
|
It reminds me a map I used to play on some years ago. I'll try to find it, it don't think it was a pro map.
Edit : oh I remember it was Memory Cell but yeah... no it is kinda different lol.
|
51667 Posts
|
THEORYCRAFTING TIME!
Here are some ideas, thrown idly around:
One could interpret this as a forced-left-spawns map, so if you want that whole SC2 schebang of limiting the starting arrangements, try out a random trigger to switch the start-pos between left and right. Obviously you wouldn't change the current start locations, so in 1v1 etc it'd still be fine.
The first point I'd like to make is: expo choice . Here, there is none really. Now having both expo choice and dynamic control features a-la Destination completely spoils us because its so hard to perfect, but so delightful. But here, "yep, you've got your bases/respective halves of the map, that's that, macro up with lots of gas and throw shit at eachother". I mean, that's totally fine if you want to promote [Protoss q; ] that style of play on this map ... but I fear that brand would be all that's possible ]:
Which brings us to the second point: dynamic control. There's nothing to fight for. By controlling the expansions, you don't get any advantage over your opponent except more money. I dunno, I just don't feel the middle left expo is on the same level of desirability and value as the middle expo on Ride of Valkyeries or BlitzX for example. There's nothing to fight over, its much more of a macro focus. Maybe that's one of the reason 3-player-maps like Athena (II) and Longinus (II) (and many more too) were interesting because it was a ballance between map control, defending your main, and who could secure the contested rich expansion. Come to think of it, that dynamic is AWESOME, it stimulates your brain man, there's potential for something interesting "I wonder who's gonna get the cake?" ...
2v2 map resource count: 3 reasonably easy gas , 1min only, 1 far gas apiece. 2 contested. I dunno, I guess it isn't tooo easy for Z to grab the main as their 3rd ->4 (5) gas ftw.
Overall, try it out spawining in the Right Hand Side Mains, maybe that could alleviate concerns of overly near rush distances. You may have to swap the widths of the nat chokes. Also, is there no way to have a desirable, exposed expo somewhere along the central axis of the map (exposed exactly like in Othello - defended but at the same time cliffable)? No love for the mineral onlys?
Along the lines of making something worthwhile to fight over, could you maybe take the sort of symmetric expo layout from the top of Snowflake Sandwitch and apply it to the left, that is, open, with contestable expos. It just seems like a potential issue that, with a bit of map control (i.e. control two chokes) you get 6 gas, so make the far side more exposed and more volatiel.
Lemme know what you think, and please feel free smack my theorycrafting outta the air with your SCMDraft toolbrushes!
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
Seems a bit Protoss favored
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uNNU4vm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Otl0R2q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x3AAxFh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0UlhbqWh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TEgjuTDh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LNn3WfJh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tY8CRZWh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Dul1Q9qh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sa5aAOEh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5g71m1Lh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JsRWDbLh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lpqXCFOh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DJxDT40h.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WzWw2qch.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag8gaCmh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VB2qDXxh.jpg)
