|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Hi there, this time i gonna need the help of the community BEFORE i dive deep into doodad work. While working on a man made style made i decided to finish Il Cattivo as side project. But i can't decide which version of the mid to choose. Version 1 is how i initially created the map. Version 2 and 3 have been created with the help of iGrok. No i need your input before i gonna move on with my work.
Some map facts before we start:
Playable map size: 126x122
Main to Main: ~154
Nat to Nat: ~122
Bases: 6 per player (incl. Main and Nat)
XWT: 2
Tileset: Typhon
HY currently only features 1 geyser - could add another one depending on tests in the future.
Alright - Poll was close but i already got a bunch of other suggestions and i like to share them.
Most wanted original concept - the High Mid version
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Oe4Xn.jpg)
Watchtowers barely side the mid but watch over the side paths. Only one big main path to your enemy. Might lead to turtle games. Might also hinder gameflow.
Monitors suggestion
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YcEKR.jpg)
Features a open mid which is connected to the 12 and 6 o'clock expansions. Might change the ramp layout in this one so don't vote on the amount of ramps. Also replaced the DRs at the 4th. Overall this concept allows for much more attack possibilities and ambushes.
Flops suggestions
Features 2 instead of one path in the mid. Rest of the map is untouched. Might also change the paths to low/high terrain. A bit of a problem could be the XWTs (favoring turtle style).
Now give me your input once again ^^
Poll: Which version do you like the most?Monitors suggestion (low but connected mid) (8) 47% Flops suggestion (2 paths in the mid) (8) 47% High Mid (original design) (1) 6% 17 total votes Your vote: Which version do you like the most? (Vote): High Mid (original design)
(Vote): Monitors suggestion (low but connected mid)
(Vote): Flops suggestion (2 paths in the mid)
+ Show Spoiler [OLD POLL INSIDE] +Version 1![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/oeoM7.jpg) Features a flat mid. Nothing special here - mid mostly likely will look like a razed temple area. Version 2![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Q7ZhF.jpg) Low ground mid putting the defender on a slight advantage. Aesthetics will most likely be the same. Version 3High ground mid - favors the attacker. XWTs have been repositoned (watch the side paths) and allows for easier (non a-move) attacks through the mid. Note: XWTs can be repositioned on all map version - please do only judge the general layout. Poll: Which map version do you prefer (layout wise)?Version 3 (high mid) (11) 46% Version 1 (flat mid) (7) 29% Version 2 (low mid) (6) 25% 24 total votes Your vote: Which map version do you prefer (layout wise)? (Vote): Version 1 (flat mid)
(Vote): Version 2 (low mid)
(Vote): Version 3 (high mid)
|
I enjoyed the high ground center. Low-ground center generally discourages two otherwise equal armies from moving in first. High ground center means only one army can have the advantage. Build some instability into the map!
|
strategically I like the flat mid but you gotta spice it up cuz it looks boring
|
Interesting...
I think you should rework the middle entirely, using lowground, to make it more fluid. Right now the edges of the map are really controlled and don't offer any choices for army movement. I suggest using the lowground option for the middle, but connecting the lowground to the 12 and 6oclock expos. You might need to add a few extra ramps too, so the map can't be split as easily.
On the 4th corner expo, you should move the rocks to the other ramp and remove the ones blocking the flatground pathway. Right now its extremely easy to hold, and there is only one entrance to 4 bases (the natural) in the early game, making the FE and turtle strategy too powerful.
I might like to see a cliff at the 3rd, and make the minerals facing the opposite way. It would make it a bit harder to turtle.
|
I like the high ground center the most. I think that it will encourage players to move their armies into the middle and fight. It would also make the XWTs more important because they would give vision onto the raised center counteracting the vision advantage. If you implement the raised center i think it might be a good idea to remove the DRs blocking the fourth in order to make counter attacks around the edges easier. Honestly I think that it will be a great map no matter what center is chosen, it will just have slightly different dynamics.
|
I voted for high ground because it's the most aggressive version on a map with quite nice 3rd and 4th, and it makes the gold base a real risk. However I agree with monitor that it'd be better if there were alternate routes that were easier to use. I would like a narrow pathway around the bottom of the hill to the XWT on the opposing side. This would mean holding the hill securely requires active management or having all your guys there.
I vote for rocks the way they are at the 3rd. Rocks don't take that long to kill if you're doing a 2base timing, and on 3-4 base they're sort of a formality. But the rocks on the ramp to the corner should go, so there's at least one back way into the 3rd and 4th bases.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Got some really good input from monitor and FlopTurnReaver in skype - will show you their ideas tomorrow - gonna take some sleep before 
|
i dont like how straight the army flow will be from nat-nat, but the low ground is the best option out of the 3 imo. also, this will make really boring games since the expansions are so easy to take. (d rock blocks their entrances.) the little terrain work in the natural is nice though (:
|
Giving advantage to the attacker punishes turtling and forces map presence (at least in theory). My vote's for version 3.
I like this map. Very BroodWar inspired, but I don't know enough about broodwar maps to know which one exactly.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On April 13 2011 08:18 WniO wrote:
i dont like how straight the army flow will be from nat-nat, but the low ground is the best option out of the 3 imo. also, this will make really boring games since the expansions are so easy to take. (d rock blocks their entrances.) the little terrain work in the natural is nice though (:
Currently at uni so i can't upload the version monitor suggested but i think you'll like this one. It uses the low ground mid but also connects the mid with the 12 and 6 o'clock expos. Also the small rocks at the 4th have been moved to the other ramp.
|
This reminds me of match point but instead of long push distance it is short push distance
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On April 13 2011 17:19 RoieTRS wrote:
This reminds me of match point but instead of long push distance it is short push distance
Wrong map - guess again :L
|
maybe keep it flat, but widen the middle and put a xnc type of hole in the middle. that could open up the map a little towards your opponents far corner expansions, too.
and overlords love to chill in nice spots! :D
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
The version monitor suggested:
Features a low but widely connected middle area (much more open).
|
the three middle ramps are a little awkward. I prefer the one or two larger ramps
|
wow, that was quite a big change :D
here's a quick paintover of my suggestion. the far corner expansions at least feel a little closer with the wide centre, maybe a little too open. but the version with the ramps does look a little more interesting
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ivL5I.jpg)
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
This is close to what Flop suggested lefix (splitting the middle path into 2 paths). Meh, absolutely unsure now ^^
|
I'm quite fond of the large/split middle and the low ground linked 12-6 expos; Not too fond of the high/low ground suggestions in the OP Sorry!!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Updated the OP with a new poll - need your input there once again.
|
I voted for Flop's version in the poll because it looks like the most fun to play. However, the XWT are pretty easy for how good they are. Two possible changes:
1) Make them easier to attack by putting them at a point of the hole, not in a cup, or put the on the N/S edge within sight of each other like Backwater Gulch.
2) Instead of a big hole, fill in the middle for a goodsized N/S passage between the towers.
I also like monitor's version but there's something that irks me about having so many ramps without leading to different areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9XyZp.jpg)
