EPTI personally dislike the new ramp at 3rd rather than the drop one that was in Frontline, this way it feels like it will just play out similarly to Jade, but maybe I'm getting that wrong, guess I'll have to try a few games next week!
Map (4)Kyanite Prospect 1v1 - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
DarkNetHunter
1224 Posts
I personally dislike the new ramp at 3rd rather than the drop one that was in Frontline, this way it feels like it will just play out similarly to Jade, but maybe I'm getting that wrong, guess I'll have to try a few games next week! | ||
|
Jukado
805 Posts
High ground main/Low ground Nat Muta harassable nats Wider nat choke More space infront of nats High ground plateau extends towards the centre Double width ramps into the 3rd (but can still pylon wall with only 2 pylons vs vults) Easier to take 4th Slightly smaller mains, slightly bigger nats Better walling at nats 5 big zones These things all greatly affect gameplay and balance. If you look at Neo Jades stats http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/545_Neo_Jade you can see there were 8 tvts and 15 pvps but 0 zvzs. Now lets not read too much into these statistics because that is a dangerous activity, but it is a clue that Zerg might be weak on Jade. | ||
|
JMave
Singapore1806 Posts
| ||
|
Jukado
805 Posts
The map has 5 upvotes on reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1egxcp/map_4kyanite_prospect_1v1/ But the map has 53 likes so far on Sonics facebook page including a 'like' by the man himself. https://www.facebook.com/sogoodtt So I think its safe to say that the map is definately Korean imbalanced. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On May 17 2013 01:57 thezanursic wrote: I think posting him the iccup competition thread would be a lot more useful and it would give him a lot of maps to draw form for future seasons I'm personally a big fan of Longinus/Othello/RoV/RH3 stuff like that. I like your map it just seems kinda blandish to me personally. Others may like it alot more tho. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
I think you did a very good job on this map. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
Biggest issue, watch for positional balance. The 9 and 3 thirds are much further from their mains than the 6 and 12 thirds. They also look much closer to the opponent's base. I'd adjust the top left and bottom right mains and shift them vertically closer to the middle while still maintaining the general shape of the map. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
The lack of a 4th gas per player is probably fine, but I'm a little worried about positional balance. Try to ensure that the distance from any nat to any 3rd and any 4th (the opposing nat adjacent to each respective 3rd) is equal. So for example, make sure that the distance from teal's nat to 9 and 6 are equal, and the distance from teal's nat to red's nat and purple's nat are equal. I'm not sure how the different shapes/angles of the 3rds change gameplay dependant on which the player must take, but I suspect it's significant. How does the map feel in-game? It looks like it might be a little tight to me. There isn't much room around the main or nat mineral formations for building turrets and such, and recall that the bottom bases have less room than the top bases because of the selection HUD. The doodads in the 3rds look like they may tighten them up too much as well. Just make sure there's room for everything-- buildings and pathing etc, and that it feels comfortable in-game. The most open parts of the map are the least important, so I'm concerned about how efficiently the space has been used. The ramps and spaces between plateaus really choke up the pathing of the map. I'm concerned this will lead to turtley gameplay, because it will be very hard for some races in each matchup to actually attack. For example, look at protoss teal vs terran blue blue: Teal really can't actually attack the terran at any point in the game because of how strong the plateaus are, and blue can't attack because any move out by him would be flanked to hell. Thus I suspect the end result is teal expanding towards purple and blue expanding towards red, resulting in a long, passive game. Relative to fighting spirit, your map is less linear but also tighter-- a combination which I think adversely effects gameplay. I could be wrong, and the gameplay could be perfectly fine, but I suspect it'll pretty much be either standard or passive. Thus I don't see that the map stands out at all relative to any other map. If after testing the map you find yourself agreeing with the things I've said, consider maybe making a 2 or 3 player map instead, using the plateaus and ramps. I think you may have limited yourself by implementing these features in a 4 player map. Alternatively, consider the possibility of making an asymmetrical 4 player map on these lines. Just try to focus on how what you're doing is going to impact the gameplay. Also try to make sure you know what the concept or point of the map is. All features should complement each other and result in achieving this concept, without contradicting each other at all. It's perfectly acceptable if you don't have one when you start making a map, but as you complete it or edit it later you should try to find/make the concept so your edits/choices have purpose. If you can never find such a concept, the map just boils down to being map-editor-practice. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but it can be frustrating. Remember the point of making maps is for the maps to be played, and for a map to be played it must in addition to being comfortable to play on, must also be interesting. I dunno if anything I've said has been helpful in the least bit, but feel free to ask for clarification on anything. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
Jaevlaterran
Sweden578 Posts
| ||
Peeano
Netherlands5185 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Iz0Yget.jpg) - The ridge at the top black line is longer than the bottom one, plus the tree creates an additional bump? - Positional imbalance. (orange rectangle marks how much further the AI-pathing from the natural to the optional 3rd is) In addition the bump in the pathing at the tree probably fucks goons/goliath AI. Think of sending reinforcements. - Personally I don't like that  | ||
|
Jukado
805 Posts
Well I PMed a few people that I hoped would give some thoughts but most didnt. Its funny cus I fully expected Idra, Day[9] and Artosis to get back to me :D [Being serious though, thankyou to those that did.] I am going to be hosting this map for an hour starting now on ICCup so come and play/obs if you want! Regarding gameplay balance: the third is too far. The thirds are definately not too hard to take. They are 13 seconds away by ground (exaclty the same as FS). There are 2 doodads outside each natural that block movement, and break up the choke which is not too wide (though yes it is wider than the bridge on FS, as is every modern map that is balanced), there is enough buildable space, the choke into the 3rd is thin (2 depots will wall, or indeed 2 pylons vs vults), the high ground can be exploited in a defensive manner. Also, the flow of the game in the period before moving out to take your third is such that you can safely take your third if done at the correct timing and with the correct execution. Protoss can't attack the terran at any point in the game because of how strong the plateaus are [A seemingly contradictory opinion to the above point; posters appear to disagree on this subject.] The ramps into the 3rds are bigger here than on FS. And the bridge choke on FS is far smaller than the choke on this map so Protoss is able to attack if wanting to use aggressive styles. Also, the high ground plateau can be utilised by both attackers and defenders much more so than Jade for example. It is also safe for Protoss to use aggressive styles because he is able to defend his own 3rd from vult back stabs relatively easily. + Show Spoiler + I could be wrong, and the gameplay could be perfectly fine, but I suspect it'll pretty much be either standard or passive. Thus I don't see that the map stands out at all relative to any other map. If after testing the map you find yourself agreeing with the things I've said, consider maybe making a 2 or 3 player map instead, using the plateaus and ramps. I think you may have limited yourself by implementing these features in a 4 player map. Alternatively, consider the possibility of making an asymmetrical 4 player map on these lines. Just try to focus on how what you're doing is going to impact the gameplay. Also try to make sure you know what the concept or point of the map is. All features should complement each other and result in achieving this concept, without contradicting each other at all. It's perfectly acceptable if you don't have one when you start making a map, but as you complete it or edit it later you should try to find/make the concept so your edits/choices have purpose. If you can never find such a concept, the map just boils down to being map-editor-practice. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but it can be frustrating. Remember the point of making maps is for the maps to be played, and for a map to be played it must in addition to being comfortable to play on, must also be interesting. In response to those two paragraphs, Im finding it really hard to write an equally in depth reply. Even after over a week of trying to formulate a reply, I cant seem to write something that seems to do it justice. I wonder, maybe it would be helpful if you expanded on some of it a little? Regarding positional balance: Guardians hiding behind the naturals are safe from goons in all positions. Range upgraded goliaths are able to kill guardians at 12 and 6 but with some difficulty and dedication. However, to address this would upset more important things in the map. Im afraid you will just have to get irradiate, wraiths or valks to fully flush the guardians out. Its worth noting that the timings when guardians are most effective is before goliaths are out anyway, so you would need to be getting irad, wraith or valk regardless of your spawn position. Also its worth saying that guards and gols both have range 8, but gols totally eat guardians so if you opened with mech, and have enough goliaths to deal with guardians harassing your natural then you will be safe to leave a minimal amount at home to defend if you are incapable of making wraith. Biggest issue, watch for positional balance. The 9 and 3 thirds are much further from their mains than the 6 and 12 thirds. Incorrect. The unwalkable gaps are exactly 18 tiles in all 4 positions. And infact, if you make a CC in you main and float to the 3rd it will have to travel 29 tiles vertically but 30 horizontally. So actually you got it the wrong way round. Try to ensure that the distance from any nat to any 3rd and any 4th (the opposing nat adjacent to each respective 3rd) is equal. The time it takes to travel from any nat to its 3rd is 13 seconds, exactly the same as Fighting Spirit. The time it takes to travel from a natural to its 'far 3rd' is either 14 seconds or 16 seconds respectively. On Fighting Spirit it is always 15 seconds. The time between naturals on this map is 23 seconds, exactly the same as FS. make sure there's room for everything-- buildings and pathing etc, and that it feels comfortable in-game. This is one of the main priorities ofcourse, and one that was met in a very satisfactory way. @s.Q.uelched We spoke online yesterday but ill reply while im here anyway. The two black lines are the same length and the tree doesnt create a bump. Ive tested moving large armies around and have been hosting lots of games, no problems so far. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PM07r6Eh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t2kq1br.jpg)
