|
United States17042 Posts
On July 01 2009 22:20 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
I would say T totally >>> P on this map... just look at the narrow passage out of natural expansion. Tanks behind those walls and units will melt like butter!
Anyways the map looks really good, just some balance thoughts, but that need testing.
Yes, but it looks like P isn't totally done - endgame should play out like outsider, with a ton of recalls. in terms of design (if you invert the whole map, with high ground interchanged with low ground) it looks a lot like katrina....
Which brings up the interesting question about what katrina would look like if it was inverted, or at least how the balance issues would change.
|
Looks heavily balanced in favor of Terran just from a glance. Terran could opt for an aggressive mech build and siege up on the hill above your natural. Good luck breaking that contain with such a small narrow choke. Manual labor drop would be your next best option but it could easily be spotted or stopped. It seems like containment would be the best strategy on this map but who knows. Very impressive either way. Your maps keep getting better and better.
|
On July 01 2009 22:26 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2009 22:22 StorZerg wrote:Do you have a map pack we can dl konadora? with all your maps O_o  Maybe I should make a thread to collate all my maps one day
sounds great, can't wait other wise
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
Played ZvP and TvP
ZvP seems quite balanced out, the key was mining out the 10x stacked minerals, and when. FE with forge seems possible, if I change the nat mineral layout a bit
As for TvP, it was an early vulture rush, so I don't know well about late game balance
|
at first I thought this would be VERY TvP favored. T can easily take their side of the map and turtle.
however, this would spread their forces thin and early arbiters would be quite strong, so I'm not sure about that any more..
it's difficult to predict imbalances without actually playing the map(:
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
I changed the nat mineral layout and added 1 more mineral field, comments and thoughts?
|
lol don't upload map to Megaupload, use bwm 
Map seems pretty neat and pretty decent. I'm concerned about pathing though, and the long distances from main2main and nat2nat. This could make for tedious reinforcing and make dealing with drops really difficult, along with making scouting awkward and making the gameplay more likely to involve cheese. Maybe you need a nmj gate? :D
|
I've always wondered: if a map was totally plain, had 2 starting points in the corner with, say, 9 mins (and a gas, obviously), and 2 empty bases in the unoccupied corners with 8 mins and a gas, would that favor a race? I figure it would favor zerg overwhelmingly, but I'm a nub.
|
On July 02 2009 07:32 gumbum8 wrote:
I've always wondered: if a map was totally plain, had 2 starting points in the corner with, say, 9 mins (and a gas, obviously), and 2 empty bases in the unoccupied corners with 8 mins and a gas, would that favor a race? I figure it would favor zerg overwhelmingly, but I'm a nub.
I'd think the map would be p>t, t>z, p>z oO
Such long distances like that would normally favour the mobile race, but that the players would be forced to play 1base would favour the nonmobile player imo. In pvt though protoss can so effectively harass and defend from terran though that I can't see how terran could win. Vultures would obviously be the core to terran gameplay in that scenario, but some cannon defense would nullify most harass and obs would make their ability to defend nearly zero. Without any strategical terrain features to abuse siege tanks would be nearly useless, and with those distances I can't see protoss losing to mnm.
|
Look like its very easy to sneak units to main but, its cool its make the game more strategic.
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
On July 02 2009 07:24 Nightmarjoo wrote:lol don't upload map to Megaupload, use bwm Map seems pretty neat and pretty decent. I'm concerned about pathing though, and the long distances from main2main and nat2nat. This could make for tedious reinforcing and make dealing with drops really difficult, along with making scouting awkward and making the gameplay more likely to involve cheese. Maybe you need a nmj gate? :D
I'm thinking of widening that mineral wall near the nat
|
yeah i dont think it would be that imba for terran as people are saying.
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
Updated to version 1.3
Increased the path, now it's 5x 10x 0 mineral fields
10x stacked protoss temples
|
I dunno if I like the edit or not. I'm concerned the block will come down quickly enough that the fact that the nat doesn't block the main choke should the blocked path not be blocked will matter (and make things a pain for FEers, p in pvz and z in zvt mostly). That could be your intention/concept though, but I dunno if I like it or not.
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
Then would increasing the number of stacked minerals change that?
It's now 10 stacks, maybe make it 25?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
