[M](4)iCCup Amazon by monitor - Page 3

funcmode

Australia720 Posts

March 14 2011 03:07 GMT

#41

That's some inspired grass tiling there prodiG

In all seriousness though, since I haven't commented on this map yet, I just spent 5 more minutes looking over it trying specifically to pick out potential faults, and I couldn't find anything - which was probably why I hadn't commented yet on this map in the first place :D

monitor

United States2404 Posts

March 14 2011 03:31 GMT

#42

On March 14 2011 12:07 funcmode wrote:
That's some inspired grass tiling there prodiG

Lol thanks. My aesthetics are a joke compared to prodiG's... I can learn from them though!

neobowman

Canada3324 Posts

March 14 2011 04:46 GMT

#43

On March 14 2011 12:31 monitor wrote:

Show nested quote +

Lol thanks. My aesthetics are a joke compared to prodiG's... I can learn from them though!

Hah, you should see mine.

WinterNightz

United States111 Posts

March 14 2011 22:37 GMT

#44

wow... I haven't played it yet, but from the overview pic, this looks like it will be my absolute favorite map. I absolutely LOVE the choice between the mineral-only 3rd and the normal third. It's interesting how in close positions, taking the mineral third is an incredibly aggressive move for one person, but relatively defensive for the other. I don't know if this counts as "imbalance", really. I personally just think it'll make for really interesting games.

I especially love the tallgrass + river-block in front of the natural. that's just asking for some awesome tactics to happen. Hell, all the tall-grass is just asking for crazy awesome mid/end-game flanks to happen.

(just in case the message didn't get through)
Love it!

FlopTurnReaver

Switzerland1980 Posts

March 14 2011 22:45 GMT

#45

Why did you add that HY? That's just an awful base :O

Varpulis

United States2517 Posts

March 15 2011 01:04 GMT

#46

i love this map -- don't get me wrong -- but i somewhat agree with FlopTurnReaver. Zerg needs vespene way more than minerals, and toss needs loads of gas to get a good deathball going.

imho, adding 1 gas would make that a good expansion making it a trade off: a full base of gas, or better/faster mineral income w/ 1/2 a base of gas.

monitor

United States2404 Posts

March 15 2011 01:14 GMT

#47

Why did you add that HY? That's just an awful base :O

Will address both of these-

The idea wasn't to be a full base or a trade off between 3rds. The expansion was more supposed to be like a mineral only inside the natural, except I moved it to make it harder to hold. It was supposed to be an obvious place for Zerg to put a macro hatch (in cross or clockwise spawn positions) and for any other race to take without having to fully commit to defending the space between the natural and 2gas third.

Adding a gas to the expansion would be extremely redundant with the 3rd because the HY is much easier to hold regarding distance from the natural and distance from the opponent, and because its supposed to be an easy source of minerals with less of a risk than the farther 3rd. A single gas would make taking the middle 3rd rather useless to take before expanding to the HY, which is not something I want.

All races need gas more than minerals. Terran does especially because of marines, but for Terran to take the gold reduces map control and allows the opponent to expand to a neutral natural or main. Zerg can easily throw a macro hatch there when he spawns clockwise from the opponent or in cross positions. When he spawns counter-clockwise from the opponent, the distance to the 3rd and 4th (other natural) is much shorter and easier to hold.

[edit] If you want to provide a reason for "That's just an awful base", that would be much better since I'm kinda blindly explaining reasoning for balancing the expansion.

I will (obviously) consider making a change to the expansion, but adding a gas would not be any sort of solution without altering the distances.

FlopTurnReaver

Switzerland1980 Posts

March 15 2011 01:48 GMT

#48

Hm sry, just thought that it's kinda obvious^^ People are saying that one of the biggest problems that XNC has is that the HY expo is like a checkpoint for Terran. If they place a PF there it's reeeally hard to get to them.

Now imagine that on this map. Theres one tiny entrance to the natural which every player will avoid because of the fear of either Siege Tanks or Forcefields. Then what's left? One wider entrance covered by a Planetary Fortress. Not very appealing imo.

JerKy

Korea (South)3013 Posts

March 15 2011 01:57 GMT

#49

Have long range units (notable the colosus and seige tank) been tested on this map?

For example, lets say a protoss player spawns at the 6 oclock, and for some reason takes the gold expansion near the 9 oclock spawn as his third base.

If a terran player spawns at 9oclock and seiges a tank from the bottom of his main, will it hit the workers in the gold expansion?

(Same question applies to colosus)

monitor

United States2404 Posts

March 15 2011 02:53 GMT

#50

The expansion has 6 minerals only, and is really only getting you 2.5 bases. On XNC, you get 4 bases, including a 7mineral 2gas HY.. even then its not a big issue. The HY expansion is a bit choked albeit, but its wide enough to get a great surround, or a runby through the small choke if he doesn't have vision through the LoS blockers (which they often don't, from the games I've played).

Putting a planetary would be effective here, but I don't think its overpowered in any way. You are essentially losing map control (where on XNC, taking the HY gives you map control) and only getting 2.5 bases...

[edit]

Yes, I have tested tanks and colossi.

Tanks can hit the gold HY expansion from the main, however only the very very edge of the main can hit the very edge of the mineral line. This is something that I want to remove currently, and will in the near future. I do want the 3rd to be droppable though, it adds a dynamic of warp-in or other harass, while also makes it easy for the player to take the 3rd against his main.

Varpulis

United States2517 Posts

March 15 2011 03:23 GMT

#51

On March 15 2011 10:14 monitor wrote:
The idea wasn't to be a full base or a trade off between 3rds. The expansion was more supposed to be like a mineral only inside the natural, except I moved it to make it harder to hold. It was supposed to be an obvious place for Zerg to put a macro hatch (in cross or clockwise spawn positions) and for any other race to take without having to fully commit to defending the space between the natural and 2gas third.

ah, i see what you mean now, thx for explaining, nvm about the adding gas point i made
(in hindsight, a pretty bad idea i realize)

in fact, i can't think of a reasonable criticism for this map anymore. I commend you sir

monitor

United States2404 Posts

March 15 2011 03:40 GMT

#52

On March 15 2011 12:23 VarpuliS wrote:

Show nested quote +

Lol np, thanks! Any concerns help, including the thought about the HY. It has raised question of whether its too easy to hold for Terran, which I will keep looking at. For the mean time, I'll just make it unseigable by the main.

Just to note, I don't mean any of this stuff personally or aggressively, I just mean to talk seriously about balance :p

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

March 15 2011 06:40 GMT

#53

Is there something stopping zerg from putting a macro hatch in another convenient spot? The only thing I can see for zerg is using the gold base to fuel a crazy amount of roaches, or as preparation to start throwing down expansions everywhere else willy-nilly using the fast minerals. Protoss can start spamming cannons at the real 3rd, or set up some kind of weird warpgate replenish attack with a silly amount of gateways. Terran can actually play normally and make tons of useful guys out of extra rax. I find that unpalatable. There's a definite dearth of high level play with mineral only expansions, so I'm a bit lost trying to formulate a robust complaint, but I don't like it because it seems quite gimmicky to use for two of the races and rather easy for the other.

However I agree that adding a gas doesn't help anything.

monitor

United States2404 Posts

March 19 2011 20:14 GMT

#54

On March 15 2011 15:40 EatThePath wrote:

Show nested quote +

From test games, it has turned out just fine. It has acted as an expansion to take before you take the full 3rd, which makes defending the distance easier. Zerg can use the expansion very easily as a 4th, and then take a 5th and 6th easier. Terran can use a Planetary fortress to defend it (or tanks), but it leaves the Zerg space and time to expand to a gas expo, which puts them ahead. Protoss can use cannons to defend it easily, but again leaves time for Zerg to take a gas expo. If a gas were added, as you say, it wouldn't improve anything because it would help Protoss and Terran turtle too much.

So, overall, it hasn't been an issue right now. I have to admit though, Zerg hasn't used it for a macro hatch as much as they have used it for an expansion to help cover distance the third. Taking it as a 4th is very possible in close positions too.