On July 01 2010 08:05 Bob300 wrote:
This is probably the only map I would play on outside the map pool, unless I had to for a tournament or sumthing.

Well i'm honored, lol. Anything new you want on the map?

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

July 01 2010 01:16 GMT

#42

-third chokes seem too tight.
-OPTIONAL fourth bases could be high yield - your choice.
-OPTIONAL you should really put in the high ground pathways from the naturals to the fourths that DigitalD suggested and have there be two watchtowers in the center put off to the sides so that controlling both of them will grant vision to these side paths.
-the destructible rocks on the wall between the third and natural is barely a difference and would make very little changes in its current position.
-the high ground near the third should be larger so that it touches the fourth. This allows for cliffwalker harass, partically colossi.
-extend the tower high ground to behind the natural to allow for more drops to occur and harassment. I know that there is a ramp up to this high ground. Also, if it connects to the main, you can place a DR there and get a back door to the main if you want.

Those r my suggestions.

Otherwise, more texture work and doodads.

Skee

Canada702 Posts

July 01 2010 02:38 GMT

#43

There is now two chokes and one has destructible rocks on the 3rd.
The tower can already see every single choke.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

July 01 2010 02:49 GMT

#44

With the watchtowers I meant only if you made that high ground ramp from the fourth to the natural.

Q: how much health do those DRs have?

vT.sOel

122 Posts

July 01 2010 02:53 GMT

#45

seems too linear

DigitalD[562]

United States80 Posts

July 01 2010 05:21 GMT

#46

On July 01 2010 11:38 Skee wrote:
There is now two chokes and one has destructible rocks on the 3rd.
The tower can already see every single choke.

Seeing every choke with a single watchtower is a bit ridiculous. I agree with antares that offset watchtowers would work well. If you use my idea of a high ground path to the fourth base then maybe put two watchtowers in between the 3rd/4th base chokes next to the small high ground.

An alternative suggestion to the offset watchtowers would be to expand the map size to support a larger center. This might help balance things out in two ways. 1) deemphasize the the map control that a single watchtower can have. 2) extend the rush distances slightly.

A few general concerns I have about this map:

-The ramp from nat. to 3rd.
I feel that protoss would be sorely lacking versus zerg in many early game situations. Protoss has no way of taking a fast natural safely with the threat of speedlings from the back door. Whether the protoss goes 3/4 gate into expo or goes robo tech or DT harass into expo, zerg will already have a really fast 3rd. On the terran side of things, that ramp lets terran turtle on three bases! Destructible rocks might help, removing the ramp might help, but either way that ramp causes too many problems as it is right now.

-The rush distances seem too short
Have you run your map through the map analyzer yet?
What are the map dimension BTW?

-Connect the 3rd base high ground to the 4th.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

July 01 2010 12:59 GMT

#47

Well put, I agree. Never thought about the backdoor being a problem for toss, probably cause I don't play toss...

The rush distances seem fine to me, I wouldn't worry about that as much.

@Skee those are what you need to fix, but good job so far!

Phrost

United States4008 Posts

July 01 2010 13:50 GMT

#48

I like the map but you might want to test it with maybe a backdoor to the mainbase that connects to the other player's 4th which would be interesting because it can cause much different expanding patterns and a different split with less emphasis on controlling the middle of the map

Stripes

Australia57 Posts

July 01 2010 14:00 GMT

#49

Would be nice to just expand the middle, make it more like Luna. Sif there hasnt been a luna sc2 remake anyway! That map was great.

eNyoron

United States170 Posts

July 01 2010 15:52 GMT

#50

Overall, this map looks really good. I would change the forths a bit though, first off get rid of the destructible rocks blocking the expansion altogether (unless you made them a gold expo). I'd also move the bridge/choke connecting the expo closer to the center of the map, so that a terran player couldn't use a few siege tanks to secure both his third and forth at the same time.

Also, are the tiny little bump/island things scattered in the lava landable for drops? Because if they are, a terran could siege the mineral lines of the bottom right main and natural, giving some major positional/racial advantage.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

July 01 2010 16:16 GMT

#51

I agree about how easy it would be for a Terran player to secure his fourth and third. That's why I suggested changing the third's choke and adding a high ground side-path from the middle.

Rabiator

Germany3948 Posts

July 01 2010 16:29 GMT

#52

The map loses a lot of its beauty through the really obvious repetition of the lava. If you could break up this repetition by some rocks (maybe add a useable island somewhere - even without resources - so you could hide tech structures there) it would help the visual impression.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

July 01 2010 17:20 GMT

#53

I agree a lot of people are complaining about lava in most map threads. One guy added water AND lava it it cooled down the color of the lava a little. It was really cool. You might want to consider doing that to this map.

Skee

Canada702 Posts

July 02 2010 07:40 GMT

#54

On July 02 2010 01:29 Rabiator wrote:
The map loses a lot of its beauty through the really obvious repetition of the lava. If you could break up this repetition by some rocks (maybe add a useable island somewhere - even without resources - so you could hide tech structures there) it would help the visual impression.

I wanted fog like on blistering sands, but dont know how. No one will tell me how. So lava stays until I get told how to do that =/.

On July 02 2010 01:29 eNyoron wrote:
Also, are the tiny little bump/island things scattered in the lava landable for drops?

They are just little pieces of land for the cosmetics.

I will look over page 3/(if there is a 4) when I get up tomorrow. For now its time for sleep.

Skee

Canada702 Posts

July 03 2010 17:25 GMT

#55

Ok, I have updated the map a bit.

Added two watch towers on each side.
Changed the fourth expansions to rich expansions.
Changed the map's lava to water.
Several cosmetic changes.
Several doodads added.
Name change pending.

Name change Poll at OP as well as new changelog and image.

Skee

Canada702 Posts

July 04 2010 21:53 GMT

#56

Here are the map analyzer images that were requested.

Watch Tower Range:
+ Show Spoiler +

Rush Distance:
+ Show Spoiler +

Bases
+ Show Spoiler +

DigitalD[562]

United States80 Posts

July 05 2010 04:35 GMT

#57

The map analyzer shows just how cramped this map is. Watch towers are still wildly effective and discourages actual scouting. Rush distances are short but not unreasonably so.

The final suggestion I will make (in addition to the others that I have made) until I get to play this map when the beta comes back is this:
-The center of the map needs to be 50%-100% larger. Watch tower vision is too good and locking the map down with only a handful of siege tanks is too easy

Skee

Canada702 Posts

July 05 2010 05:48 GMT

#58

On July 05 2010 13:35 DigitalD[562] wrote:
The map analyzer shows just how cramped this map is. Watch towers are still wildly effective and discourages actual scouting. Rush distances are short but not unreasonably so.

The final suggestion I will make (in addition to the others that I have made) until I get to play this map when the beta comes back is this:
-The center of the map needs to be 50%-100% larger. Watch tower vision is too good and locking the map down with only a handful of siege tanks is too easy

Yeah, I get what you mean. I am waiting for some play time before I make a major terrain change like that though.

Skee

Canada702 Posts

July 08 2010 03:25 GMT

#59

Just letting everyone know that I am publishing all 3 of my maps now that beta is back up.
Aphareus
Geneva (previously Magneus)
King's Country

EDIT: The editor is not letting me connect to bnet, but SC2 is.

DigitalD[562]

United States80 Posts

July 14 2010 00:36 GMT

#60

After getting my hands on this map I was shock to see how many of my suspicions were proven true. Without some drastic changes this map will wallow in mediocrity. I only played as terran vs the comp. to check the map for design flaws and not necessarily any racial imbalance.

1 - Chokes are way too small. The nat. can nearly be walled off with a cc. The 3rd can be walled of COMPLETELY! A terran can put a defensive cc down at the nat. choke and hold it down with only a couple tanks then lift to the 3rd choke and wall off with a PF.

2 - The D rocks can be sieged from the high ground. I don't think this was intended. Might be irrelevant given my previous point.

3 - Ramp from nat. to 3rd. Breaks all T vs X matchups. This problem is exacerbated further by first point. There is potential for good harassment options and early game pressure in non T matchups. With that said I still feel that an easy 3rd is a big issue that can be solved by removing the ramp.

4 - This map is too small. The main feels small, the nat. feels small, the chokes are small and the middle is small. Expanding the map 40x40, pushing the 3rd and 4th bases further away, and doubling the size of the middle will help tremendously.

My previous suggestion about adding highground to the center area still stands, I too would like to see the map size expanded in its current layout before you make any drastic terrain changes.

Sorry if I seem overly critical. This map has a lot of potential and I look forward to what comes next.

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh