EPTOn February 08 2011 01:10 PredY wrote:
make it small enough so terran can't drop tanks on it
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/908GX.jpg)
make it small enough so terran can't drop tanks on it
you can make that sort of stuff unpathable easily so that's no issue
[M](2)iCCup Pawn Re - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
you can make that sort of stuff unpathable easily so that's no issue | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On February 08 2011 00:13 monitor wrote: The only way to make the water bigger is to make the entire map bounds bigger, which would mess up the rest of the map's balance. Or I could make the main a bit smaller? I'm not a big fan of either of these though; Have you tried putting an overlord on the unpathable cliff behind the 1gas expo in the middle? That is what its there for, so it should work to scout from there. ye but its like xel naga caverns. u can see 1 geyser maybe by poking in but if u want to see second geyser u must sacrifice the overlord and then ur pretty fucked vs a 4warpgate with 1 gas regardless | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On February 08 2011 02:56 MorroW wrote: ye but its like xel naga caverns. u can see 1 geyser maybe by poking in but if u want to see second geyser u must sacrifice the overlord and then ur pretty fucked vs a 4warpgate with 1 gas regardless Hmm.. good point. I'm reluctant to make the map bigger beacuse air harass (banshee, muta) will be very strong on the outskirts of the map, so taking a 3rd/HY will be harder than it already is... Do you think I should decrease the main size a bit to allow overlord space? Or should I add that high ground pod? | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On February 08 2011 08:28 Ragoo wrote: You could make no fly zone where the HY and 3rds are, I don't know if you could make that visually logical tho. I'm skeptical to do that just because its never been done, and this is being used in multiple tournaments (including ESL). OP has been updated with a new overview image; --Main changed to natural cliffs --Natural changed to natural cliffs --border added (by prodiG) --underwater details added (by prodiG) --loading screen added The map is up on NA | EU | Korea | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
Maybe you want to tell everyone to vote for Pawn Re (and Testbug)  | ||
|
green.at
Austria1459 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On February 08 2011 23:54 green.at wrote: the cliff at the 3rd base is troubling and the distance form nat to nat is very short. if you get more people saying that you could remove one of the middle ramps on each side ( may be too drastic) or do something else about it. The cliff at the third is necessary to allow air harass and drops on the third, otherwise it would be quite easy to hold. Right now the rush distance is set up so you can 1-base rush/all-in, but early expanding is an equally viable option too (especially with ability to spine crawler the choke). | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
| ||
|
Obscura.304
150 Posts
Seriously, it's actually smaller than most of the Blizz maps. Of the 2-player Blizz maps, I'm fairly sure only Steppes has a smaller rush distance... and not even by much. And even Steppes' overall dimensions are significantly larger. EDIT- Just tested it, Nat2nat distance with a drone is only very slightly longer than Steppes, and far shorter than Xel'Naga. Given that Xel'Naga Caverns is by far the most popular of the Blizz maps, I don't see why you'd create a map with a smaller rush distance. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
Looks pretty cool though !! :D | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On February 13 2011 12:12 Obscura.304 wrote: I'm with those who say the map is too small. Seriously, it's actually smaller than most of the Blizz maps. Of the 2-player Blizz maps, I'm fairly sure only Steppes has a smaller rush distance... and not even by much. And even Steppes' overall dimensions are significantly larger. EDIT- Just tested it, Nat2nat distance with a drone is only very slightly longer than Steppes, and far shorter than Xel'Naga. Given that Xel'Naga Caverns is by far the most popular of the Blizz maps, I don't see why you'd create a map with a smaller rush distance. If the map was bigger it would mess everything up. The distances are precise right now; I'll try to explain as concisely as I can, it can be a bit complex. The rush distance allows for rushes, but also FE with the small choke and easy spine crawlers in between hatchery and ramp. If they were longer, it would make expanding too easy and necessary, which would go against the concept. It is meant to be a dynamic map with battles taking places in different locations, not just one (like Steppes of War). The following explains why longer distances would also mess that up: The third be positioned awkwardly. Right now, the distance from natural to 3rd is short, and that is how it needs to be to expand there. The small choke to the 3rd would be too drawn out and become unfair for T or P to exploit as an early game back door to avoid static defense. If I made the choke shorter to counterbalance this, it would throw off the proportions and thus skew battle locations. The opponent would also have a too difficult time attacking the Third. Right now, it is already a pain for the opponent to attack your third because it is notably farther away than the natural. If the map were bigger, it would only amplify this slight issue. Additionally, the cliff would never be used for the same reason. The middle would also be too big if I expanded the map. It would make it a wasteland of useless space since it currently provides a divide for the two sides, and often an area to use mobility armies. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NCJSd.jpg) | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
Woah, this is EU server? Uhg... Blizzard's paint pathing is fail. Will be fixed immediately. | ||
|
kazansky
Germany931 Posts
Two of our player have massive apm issues on the map, which they don't have on other maps. FPS drop to the amount where you cannot place forcefields correctly anymore. Is this common or a problem with them? | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On March 13 2011 03:13 kazansky wrote: A question that occured in our practice session, do you use some very RAM heavy textures? Two of our player have massive apm issues on the map, which they don't have on other maps. FPS drop to the amount where you cannot place forcefields correctly anymore. Is this common or a problem with them? Textures rarely cause FPS drops at all. The only reason I can think of for this to happen is if your players are using graphics cards that are 3-4 years old and below SC2's minimum spec. EDIT: I should point out that this is only in regards to the textures of the map, not other aesthetic features or graphic settings of the player's machines. | ||
|
kazansky
Germany931 Posts
I don't know what could cause it, the machine in general is sufficient for starcraft2, and they don't have issues on other maps. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On March 14 2011 03:15 kazansky wrote: We reinvestigated a bit, the FPS drops extreme at the ramp between second and third. I don't know what could cause it, the machine in general is sufficient for starcraft2, and they don't have issues on other maps. Hmm.. I will look into it. My computer is unbelievably bad, I can barely play 2v2 at all (and I'm on absolute lowest). I'll see what I can remove in that area. Thanks for pointing it out! | ||
|
Neverplay
Austria532 Posts
| ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
| ||
| ||
