|
You picked the correct name for Utopia, so many bases.  I think you've succeeded with a reasonable equivalence for close spawns; I really like how the rocks work to the righthand 3rd for the player who is anticlockwise. The center high ground might be improved upon, but I'm not sure how. I like it now anyway, really encourages holding the middle, like some of the 3player BW maps.
Dauntless looks... intense. It's so close once both rocks are down. If it were me, I would make it a stack of 3, or something like that, so breaking the rocks is high reward, but difficult. Then it's something worth contesting, not a looming inevitability.
I have an idea for Providence aesthetics, just popped into my head while I was looking at it again. The low ground areas are marshy grass, like a wetlands. Maybe very sparsely scattered trees or LOS bushes, and lots of interconnected ponds, possibly with no building allowed in part or totally. The center area is rocky, the water ended up carving out the softer low lands. The bases have a castle sort of feel (not literally, just giving that impression). Like Scotland meets Montana Rockies.
That's all, like the new stuff.
|
EatThePath, you seem to have nailed my intentions for Utopia. I wanted the center to be important even if the players are not spawning in cross positions. I'm unsure how I would improve upon it. I wanted it to be open so that battles could occur there. It was kind of boring while I was designing it, but when I extended those little high ground peninsulas toward the clockwise thirds, it made the center high ground a very dangerous and important space for attack and defense respectively.
Intense... indeed. That's why I named it Dauntless. It is the smallest map I've made at 116x116 playable area. I was experimenting with an easy to take but difficult to defend back door expansion. I also noticed how this unfortunately creates a very short attack distance once the rocks are opened up. I tried to make the rocks easier to defend in order to delay their destruction as much as possible. The main cliff overlooks the rock and there are LoS blockers just outside of the rocks. I think adding more rocks may be a good idea. I will see how that works.
As for Providence, here is how it currently looks:
+ Show Spoiler [Providence] +
|
Erebus now in completed section.
|
Check out my new work in progress: Harvest
|
@Harvest: Very cool, I definitely like the idea of the layout, pushing that expand toward opponent style. The bit around the watchtowers is clever, kudos there. The corner bases are problematic for me. All the individual pieces make sense taken separately, but the whole thing looks awkward. I think this is a situation where you need to identify something to cut, achieve more through simplicity. To me, the cliff for drops doesn't seem central to what you're doing here, even though it's a natural addition once you put the rocks there to make the gold a little safer. If you remove it, you can take away the rocks, and reformat that high ground passage to the corner. I might even try making it a low ground passage to corner, so that gold harass isn't automatic. This changes the lategame dynamic though.
Reexamining things, I realize I might be reading the flow wrong. I play protoss so I would naturally expand anticlockwise except for PvP I might go for the corner as 3rd.
The open expanse of crops is making me feel agorophobic. My first thought is to shave off some of the corner of the main and put a hole or mesa in the middle of it. This highlights the breathing room of the center ditch more. I really like the dynamic at 4 bases btw, where the action shifts from north-south to east-west.
I hope this isn't too much feedback. Your designs are very deep, so I am compelled to dissect at length. 
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D
|
The problem with Harvest is the same problem that Jungle Basin has. Zerg is screwed when it comes to a third. The listed third has its mineral line very close to the ramp, which is close to the gold expo, but the third is very far away from you main/nat area, so defending both places is extremely difficult. Expanding clockwise is slightly better, but will come under a lot of pressure and is also quite far away.
I do like the open half of the natural and how it flows into the center, and I like how risky the golds are to take. The nat-tanking area is interesting, and i'm not sure how that would work out - it could be just fine, and an elegant solution to droppable nats.
|
On December 01 2010 18:27 dezi wrote:
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D
I don't have the info with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the playable size is 116x132, the main-to-main distances is a little over 150 and the nat-to-nat distances is about 125.
@EatThePath & iGrok:
I will attempt to explain my thinking for some of my decisions for Harvest. I wanted both the counterclockwise and clockwise expansions to be viable choices for a third base. Originally the ramps to the counterclockwise base were much wider and I reduced them for fear of it being to difficult to defend. Based on your comments, I may reduce them further.
I took a lot of time tweaking and changing the nat-cliff-to-corner-expansion path. From a zerg perspective, I thought that the best course of action would be to destroy to rocks leading to their natural cliff immediately in order to protect their natural. This would then open up the corner expansion to be taken as a third. I believe that the attack distances to the corner base is much further and would be a good choice as for a third as zerg. This would also mean you would control the high ground cliff and it would make taking the gold expansion easier.
EatThePath, I enjoy the fact that you said as a Protoss player, you would take the counterclockwise expansion as your third base because that means the map has varying possibilities depending on the match ups. This is something that I feel is difficult to achieve and that sort of variability helps to increase the longevity of a map.
As for the open space in front of the natural, I didn't believe it to be very open when I was creating the map. I did intend that space to be used for battles and I left it intentionally open. But, upon further inspection of the analyzer image, I can see what you mean. I will see what I can do.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On December 02 2010 05:15 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 18:27 dezi wrote:
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D I don't have the info with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the playable size is 116x132, the main-to-main distances is a little over 150 and the nat-to-nat distances is about 125.
Sounds fine for a 1v1 map.
|
On December 02 2010 05:21 dezi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 05:15 BoomStevo wrote:On December 01 2010 18:27 dezi wrote:
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D I don't have the info with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the playable size is 116x132, the main-to-main distances is a little over 150 and the nat-to-nat distances is about 125. Sounds fine for a 1v1 map.
Of course it is!
|
Made some changes to Harvest. Tell me what you think.
|
@Harvest v0.2: Wonderful! I agree with everything you did, and I can't find anything more to complain about.
|
On December 04 2010 23:15 EatThePath wrote:
@Harvest v0.2: Wonderful! I agree with everything you did, and I can't find anything more to complain about.
Cool. I'll probably move forward with finishing it up unless someone else has any comments.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I would like to see a version with the main, nat and 3rd all slightly pushed a little closer towards the center of the map (so f.e. the gap between the main and the expansions at 3 and 9 o'clock is a tad smaller.
Anyway, good 0.2 rework. Go for it
|
On December 05 2010 19:37 dezi wrote:I would like to see a version with the main, nat and 3rd all slightly pushed a little closer towards the center of the map (so f.e. the gap between the main and the expansions at 3 and 9 o'clock is a tad smaller. Anyway, good 0.2 rework. Go for it
That space is actually the distance of a siege tank. It makes it so the alternative expansion pattern is available and the opponent can take that as a 5th without having to worry about tanks from the main. It may not be a huge concern, but that's the reason why the gap is so big.
I updated the OP with version 0.2 of Dauntless. I closed off the back door and changed the high ground near the back door expansion to more of a "step". Tell me what you think.
+ Show Spoiler [Dauntless] +
|
So, the step is intended to provide more vulnerability to the downstairs base? If so, only colossus really...?
Now I see three easily defended bases with a long ground distance, and the fourth isn't difficult, like a normal third. I would never take the vertically adjacent gold, so that leaves the horizontally across gold as the only point of contention.
I really like the new spot for drops. I see drops as the main spectacle here. Overall, the layout is sort of uninspiring now, because the whole point before was the rocks. However, it quietly rewards well timed use of air units or drops, so in theory I could see interesting play. But at a basic level, blah.
|
Finish Dissension, Dune Sea, and Mount Ida.
NOW.
|
On December 07 2010 10:25 Antares777 wrote:
Finish Dissension, Dune Sea, and Mount Ida.
NOW.
I didn't think Dissension and Dune Sea were all that well received initially. Why do you think those are worthy of completion? I disliked Dissension but I did like Dune Sea. There are problems with Dune Sea that were pointed out that I agree with and haven't had any ideas how I wanted to go about fixing them. Mount Ida I've been working on for quite a while. I might finish it eventually.
|
Great maps, keep 'em coming.
|
Judicator added to WIP section of OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MFvGF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/38624.jpg)
