|
On May 01 2017 05:16 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2017 18:44 Piste wrote:
So what is wrong about expansions being similar? At least that makes them balanced :D
Nothing is wrong with it. Its just wasted potential. You might as well make 2 of them different. The map is still balanced but there is more variety. Show nested quote +On April 29 2017 18:44 Piste wrote:
Also changing the center expansion to 4 smaller minerals onlys would make them practically useless untill the map is mined out elsewhere (except maybe for terran in TvP) And what is the middle expansion? Its even less likely to be taken. How often do you see pros take the center expansions on FS? But I propose, that four smaller mineral-only expansion could see a little bit more play. A terran may take it while pushing out or when protecting their 3rd. A zerg may take it in the late game or in split-map situations. I dont think its a bad idea.
I've seen pros take the center expansion on FS countless times. Dividing it to several smaller mineral onlys would made them way less usable. I don't understand the logic that makes you think 4 small mineral onlys on center would made the, being used more than one expansion with 4x amount of minerals+2 gas
|
On May 06 2017 05:42 Piste wrote:I've seen pros take the center expansion on FS countless times. Dividing it to several smaller mineral onlys would made them way less usable. I don't understand the logic that makes you think 4 small mineral onlys on center would made the, being used more than one expansion with 4x amount of minerals+2 gas
Yes on FS terrans do occasionally take the centre base vs protoss for example, and protoss does occasionally take the centre base vs zerg for example, and I mean not as the final expansion but as their 4th or something. Usually it is when they took a 3rd base at the normal side base location, but ended up losing it. They sometimes take the centre base instead of retaking the normal 3rd, or instead of taking the alternative side base. It can sometimes be as a bit of a trick, but sometimes its legitimately a good strategic choice.
I would point out though that Clay Fields would play a bit differently overall and so the viability of taking the centre base here is probably less than on FS. But you never know. Also things like if Protoss went carriers vs terran and the game became fairly volatile, then the centre base might end up more attractive than a side base for sure etc. Thats quite niche though. Its always going to be a niche base. The centre base on FS is a niche base too, you may have seen countless games where it was taken, but its not that high a percentage.
It would be possible to make 4 mineral onlies that would see more use if done in certain ways. Its less about the amount of resources than it is the defensibility of the location (the distance from your rally, the amount of cover from a cliff).
I should point out the centre base on Clay Fields is half resources. It has 12 patches @749 minerals each and 2 gas @2500 each.
RoomOfMush's picture is one way of doing it. Another way is like Freakling mentioned where the bases are close to the hills. Id probably put a semicircle wall around them too so they arent just wide open if I were to do it like that.
However, the goal here isnt to make a base that will see more action or not. The goal is to make a map with as good gameplay as possible. At the moment I agree with you that a single centre base is fine.
Hmm, what about if there were 2 bases in the centre? Vertical mineral lines, 2 crescent moon shapes of cliff with a gap between them. Basically take the existing base, slice it in half, move the right half of the base to the left hand side of the map, and vice versa. Hopefully that makes sense.
|
UPDATE
Version 0.91 Clay Fields
-Asphalt centre
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/coMWIS5.jpg)
The map has been completely resource debugged again too.
|
Here is an overview showing buildable areas:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YPj41ZQ.jpg)
You can see that, as before, there is space for a few turrets at the north and south tip of the asphalt.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On April 29 2017 04:00 RoomOfMush wrote:
Remove the center expansion and add 4 smaller expansions to the center. Mineral only or with reduced resources.
ahh memories of R-Point.
|
Anyone have some
analysis,
theorycrafting,
opinions,
suggestions,
concerns,
insults?
|
Scan says:
"not a good map. rush distance is long. only 7 mineral fields at natural and very hard to take 3rd.
it also looks like FS and CB.
will require 500 additional mineral field and fix some of horizontal match-up rush distance."
Rush distance is 19/20 seconds vertical, 24 seconds between bottom spawns, and 25/26 seconds between top spawns.
(completely acceptable as you would expect from a standard map).
Hard to take 3rd. Yep it is harder than 'normal'. Id argue not harder than for example La Mancha. Also maps that have harder 3rds are commonly being used at the moment in tournaments. The map is following modern trends in a way.
I agree that adding a 500 mineral patch to the nats would help terran to take a 3rd base vs protoss, and this is a good option to keep on the table for a potential future edit.
"it also looks like FS and CB."
So you are saying its a mix of the 2 most popular standard maps. Perfect! That is exactly what Im going for!
Were you saying this as a negative or a positive?
|
Can you stop bumping this please
Make it a blog or something
|
On May 21 2017 21:48 Jukado wrote:
Scan says:
"not a good map. rush distance is long. only 7 mineral fields at natural and very hard to take 3rd.
it also looks like FS and CB.
will require 500 additional mineral field and fix some of horizontal match-up rush distance."
Rush distance is 19/20 seconds vertical, 24 seconds between bottom spawns, and 25/26 seconds between top spawns.
(completely acceptable as you would expect from a standard map).
Hard to take 3rd. Yep it is harder than 'normal'. Id argue not harder than for example La Mancha. Also maps that have harder 3rds are commonly being used at the moment in tournaments. The map is following modern trends in a way.
I agree that adding a 500 mineral patch to the nats would help terran to take a 3rd base vs protoss, and this is a good option to keep on the table for a potential future edit.
"it also looks like FS and CB."
So you are saying its a mix of the 2 most popular standard maps. Perfect! That is exactly what Im going for!
Were you saying this as a negative or a positive?
I kinda want unsymmetrical maps. Aztec, Neo Medusa, Outsider, Heartbreak Ridge, FS, Neo Jade, Neo Electric Circuit and stuff.
maps like CB Andromeda are so boring imo.
|
What you mean is actually rotational symmetry, not asymmetry (as opposed to axial symmetry in the case of CB, Andromeda and the likes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
