Overall that's a cool design, I like it. However I think it has 2 main issues; first, I think the middle ramps (not blocked by rocks) should be 1 size bigger, they look a little tight right now. Second, the extra entrance with the rocks looks like it will give a big advantage to the player spawning clockwise if close positions - who will get a pretty safe gold expo, whereas the anti-clockwise player's safest fourth is a lot more exposed and is also blocked by rocks.

I'm not sure what to recommend here really, as without that extra entrance the layout all of a sudden seems sort of bland... Perhaps if you shift the gold expo's slightly, so that the top-right gold moves slightly to the right, the bottom right moves slightly down, etc, that might help balance out the 4th base inequality. Downside of this might be siege tanks reaching parts of the main =/

Actually, looking at it again, once the rocks are destroyed, the anti-clockwise player probably has the advantage when it comes to actually attacking, so that might balance out with the slightly riskier 4th. I'd still make the most central ramps a bit bigger, but the entrances with rocks could actually be quite sweet.

dimfish

United States663 Posts

February 12 2011 05:48 GMT

#124

boom, I don't play Terran but here's what I'd try on your newest: one or two barracks, OC, then pick up and fly to the gold which is a pretty short trip while you build a bunker or two at the ramp to center.

I think MULEs on the gold that early would more than make up for the lost mining time, and the advantage would kick in before your opponent's (even terran) early game army could threaten one of the extra rock routes in.

If you stabilized, you even have three bases to your rear to expand to!

Maybe a small destructible on the gold to keep the first command center from migrating until at least a handful of units are out?

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

February 12 2011 06:16 GMT

#125

Middle is high ground.

dimfish

United States663 Posts

February 12 2011 06:24 GMT

#126

that makes a lot of sense!

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 12 2011 07:44 GMT

#127

First of all, is it just me or do your analyzer settings not include distinct colorsets for different altitudes? I can't see the cliff levels at all in the analyzer pics (though you can deduce them most of the time, or use the real pics).

I like the new stuff. I was laughing to myself looking at your first maps, and what you turn out now! (That's a compliment, hehe.) You have a knack for using a subtle shift in expansion layout / orientation to completely redefine flow. Foundation seems perfect except it's slightly too big, too open. Shrink 10%, maybe just vertically? Forgotten* looks like a true macro map: the bases line up for the taking and can be defended by a good player, but nothing is free. The midgame push is very strong here, but you get highground for defending the 3rd. A longer game will be dominated by feigned pushes and good use of harassment / defending it. The gold choice is for 4th, not third, which is okay. Unfortunately the tower reveals it so you can't sneak it as a 3rd.

The unnamed big rotational map. The ramps to center have to be bigger simply as a concession to late game army size, if for no other reason. Otherwise there is no chokepoint that can fit 200/200 roach/hydra remax, for example. I would also double the ramp to the inside natural, it's just asking for a blockoff cheese at that size, and changing it doesn't really lose anything. I think to preserve the limited fluidity the center should be mostly or completely unbuildable. Bunkers and tanks and turrets... yuck. Not impossible, but the map is better without that. Maybe just a 6x6 or 8x8 buildable patch in the center. FYI, the tower circles reveal that they are slightly closer SW/NE than NW/SE, as well as the rest of the terrain, I assume. Not important imo.

edit: *I would classify it as "macro on par with fighting spirit"

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

February 12 2011 11:04 GMT

#128

How big is the map (playable area) and what are the m2m / n2n distances (also with rocks destroyed). The map idea seem so be to create a somewhat better version of Crevasse. When i compare this with Ptolemy i like your layout much more (center isn't so forced and there is more space to move around. You can actually take a 4th / 5th ... where as on Ptolemy you're right next to each other once you try to move out of you map quarter.

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

February 12 2011 11:24 GMT

#129

Last posts were pretty quick since I didn't have much time. I made a few changes from the suggestions and here are some better images. Oh, and a name:

Venator:
+ Show Spoiler +

EffectS

Belgium795 Posts

February 12 2011 11:31 GMT

#130

Wooow, boomstevo... that's a real interesting map...
I actually really can't wait to see this fully textured and doodaded (is this an actual word?). I really want to see pro games on this map... like seriously! nice!

BoomStevo

United States332 Posts

March 01 2011 13:50 GMT

#131

On February 12 2011 20:04 dezi wrote:
How big is the map (playable area) and what are the m2m / n2n distances (also with rocks destroyed). The map idea seem so be to create a somewhat better version of Crevasse. When i compare this with Ptolemy i like your layout much more (center isn't so forced and there is more space to move around. You can actually take a 4th / 5th ... where as on Ptolemy you're right next to each other once you try to move out of you map quarter.

Sorry for taking so long to respond but I posted and decided to let the map sit for a while. I broke it out recently and I tested the times.

The map is 128x128 playable. As for distances, the analyzer main-to-main distances is about 140. Real-time ramp-to-ramp time is about 27 seconds with the rocks up and about 23 seconds with the rocks taken out.

On February 12 2011 20:31 EffectS wrote:
Wooow, boomstevo... that's a real interesting map...
I actually really can't wait to see this fully textured and doodaded (is this an actual word?). I really want to see pro games on this map... like seriously! nice!

Thanks. I will probably take this map to completion unlike a lot of my WIPs.

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

March 01 2011 16:19 GMT

#132

What, this map that looks kinda big is only 128x128? Amazing :D

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

March 02 2011 10:16 GMT

#133

On March 02 2011 01:19 dezi wrote:
What, this map that looks kinda big is only 128x128? Amazing :D

we need proof!

it looks like 144x144, but uit would be amazing if only 128! it looks good and solid, the only point I have is the central ramps could be a little bit bigger. it must be possible to get behind the rock via the central route quickly, now it looks like a rather tight corner and there is quite some space to position siegetanks on the ledge next to the XWT. probably make ramps one size bigger and one step towards gold to ease movement up there?

Prev 1 5 6 7 All

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh