|
(edited for the current version)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/p7T90R2.jpg)
http://www.panschk.de/mappage/comments.php?mapid=5084
1.22 tiles used. (with consideration for collision, LOS and height issues)
Low ground main.
Axial symmetry.
9, 7, 8, 6 patches per base. Standard resource numbers. Resource counts should be just about identical to Circuit Breakers.
High ground outside nat is buildable.
Center proxies allowed.
The map contains some trapped critters in unimportant places.
Dead terran doodads everywhere.
Mining efficiency and worker spawns have not yet been adjusted. (at least until Freak tells me how do I do that, pretty please)
Wall ins should be reasonably possible, but have not been extensively tested.
I have no idea how the map looks on SCR, so I'd welcome some shots. (especially of the bridge sides, I don't know how that turned out)
|
Fucking really nice map man. I see elements of many maps that I love such as Troy, colo 2, voices 4, desertec, fs and others. Well done
|
United States10283 Posts
this is only cross spawn enabled right? cause otherwise this is super imbalanced.
|
|
|
Looks beatiful with first glance, but why do 1 and 7 o'clock expansions have two ramps while the other two have just a single entrance? Is there enough buildable ground to wall in those expansions?
|
The tiny back ramp was added to equalize travel times.
None of the thirds are easily wallable, I'll admit that vultures murdering probes kinda slipped my mind there. I could address all of this by making "normal" ramps and pointing them the "right" way, but that opens another can of worms...
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3dBo4AI.jpg)
|
Haha !! Tesagi zone ! and siege tanks drew in Paint 
Great !!! 
|
Vertical rushing distances are too definitely too short.
In your trying to avoid gas mining imbalances you introduce other imbalances, such as the bottom natural gases being a lot more exposed. This is why most maps only use optimal gas positions consistently in the mains.
Instead of having inconsistent numbers of ramps to the thirds you should just fiddle with symmetry and adjust the position and makeup of those bridges.
All the unwalkable doodads probably make pathfinding really painful.
As for the mining thing: You need to understand pathfinding regions for that…
|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iqWgVoj.jpg)
It's kinda fixed now.
Many of the solid doodads are actually there to fix the pathing mesh. As for the debris outside your natural, it's just out of the way enough that you'll never generate a path through there unless you actually click that spot.
Can't really help the rush distance without significantly altering the map's shape.
|
United States10283 Posts
I'm still a bit confused... why did you make a mirrored symmetry map and not have the 3rd bases mirrored...
Also if you can't really help the rush distance problem, then you just have a bad map. Like, if you're so keen on this map design, you need to acknowledge you need to fix things with map design and sometimes, that means greatly altering the map in a way you didn't want to. Freakling is pretty good at this, he'll give concessions to his maps that need improvement and ultimately the map looks way better as a final product anyways, even if the map design is not how he envisioned at the beginning.
Start by properly mirroring the symmetry of the map. The natural chokes all look weird and the 3rd need to be fixed. Then we can move on from there.
|
On November 16 2018 04:34 FlaShFTW wrote:Also if you can't really help the rush distance problem, then you just have a bad map. Couldn't have put it any better.
If you want a sideways natural choke on a 4p map work at the very least you need to make it rotationally symmetric to get proper spacing. Even then it's probably not gonna work (where do you put the 3rd?). The only map I can think of where something like this has been tried is the very first version of Tornado, and guess what, that feature was also the very first thing that got updated out (not that it ever became a good map though). There's generally a reason why things in maps are done a certain way and no other, particularly why virtually all 4p maps follow basically the same blueprint. Restrictions on map size, symmetry, distances, number of bases, proper spacing and racial balance don't leave much freedom to alter certain aspects too much. Look at other maps and try to understand why exactly the map maker did things a certain way and no other. Then you have a basis, a seed around which you can start to let your own ideas crystallize, so to speak.
|
Y’all are hating way too hard on this map. This is a solid effort. I was mapmaking on campaign editor recently and what I spat out was a piece of shit compared to this and I tried hard. So keep working on this map Youngblood the results will come
|
The only one "hating" here is probably the guy framing constructive criticism as "hating"…
|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PtlIKEB.jpg)
and then it turned into aztec
|
So here's the less retarded version. Map download has been updated.
|
United States10283 Posts
Not sure on the exact timings but looks like vertical rush distance is still an issue. I like the overall structure of the map a lot better though, though not the biggest fan of those natural gas placements. also I think minerals closer to the cliff at the natural would be better for muta micro, right now theres too much space behind for turrets and vision to deter mutas from ever wanting to harass the natural. make the cliff area bigger.
|
You mean the high compound wall? That can be done.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OSJhdPH.jpg)
|
United States10283 Posts
the problem is tanks hitting the mineral line from behind the wall. thats why i wanted you to make it sizable to make that not an issue.
|
You mentioned mutas, not tanks.
Anyway, this should be good enough. The town hall is definitely not siegable, you can't turret up easily, it's easier to slip in lings and zealots, harder to tank up and turtle, and the wall blocks vision, so if you want to siege a few workers that can just be pulled, you need to spend a scan or fly something in.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fZErSbv.jpg)
|
Do the nats need to make it super easy for muta harass? We should learn from the mistakes of roadkill and not make it too easy for zerg.
|
On November 25 2018 08:54 oshibori_probe wrote:
We should learn from the mistakes of roadkill and not make it too easy for zerg.
Since when was Roadkill easy for zerg?
|
On November 25 2018 09:00 zerglingling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 08:54 oshibori_probe wrote:
We should learn from the mistakes of roadkill and not make it too easy for zerg. Since when was Roadkill easy for zerg?
Since the day it was made.
|
Your individual ladder experience is probably not very indicative. Especially I don't see how the nats are in any way particularly susceptible to Mutalisk harassment, as you seem to imply. They don't even have any cliffs behind the mineral lines to shield Mutas from Turret vision and I cannot remember any games that would suggest that Mutas are particularly strong on the map.
The statistics for ZvT on Roadkill in the KSL are pretty even numerically, but all the Zerg victories so far have stemmed from weird all-ins and map-specific one-time strategies, all the straight forward games went to Terran and I have never seen a Zerg beat a Terran on stream either. So the map is probably rather T>Z imbalanced.
On the other hand ZvP statistics are at something like 7:0 right now, but again many of these are due to stuff like fast ling run-bys or Zerg (particularly Jaedong) just completely outplaying Protoss, so again the number do not seem to make a representative statement about balance.
If there is in deed a T>Z and/or Z>P tendency on that map I am not even entirely sure why. It might be be that rush distances are ever so slightly shorter than on most maps. That in conjunction with the low ground mains might explain why Zerg are struggling to defend a third against Terran or why Protoss have difficulty stopping early lings.
|
On November 25 2018 09:34 Freakling wrote:
If there is in deed a T>Z and/or Z>P tendency on that map I am not even entirely sure why.
It couldn't possibly be the lack of a decent third gas, now would it?
|
On November 26 2018 02:16 zerglingling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 09:34 Freakling wrote:
If there is in deed a T>Z and/or Z>P tendency on that map I am not even entirely sure why. It couldn't possibly be the lack of a decent third gas, now would it?
What's wrong about taking the close corner base?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
