| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
I wonder if the judges found the map to have good gameplay as is, or chose it pending the proposed revisions? Regardless, I had a lot of fun testgames prior to submitting it, perhaps the judges had that too. Sometimes flawed is better than perfect, but that also takes a good amount of luck. | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On May 11 2011 19:17 Johanaz wrote: I have done 2 versions of the map with the changes suggested by monitor: Version 1:+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9SDs3.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/df4qI.jpg) Version 1 is close to what monitor suggested except I did not move the gold to replace 3rd base. Version 2 is identical to my original layout but with 2 ramps added by the gold in order to open up the long path to the 3rds. Also, I removed 1 gas at the gold and one mineral patch at the side expos. As both versions address the problem with the long path I´d like to know which revision you guys prefer. Here´s a poll if you want to share your opinion:+ Show Spoiler + Version 1 I miss the additional path removed above the HY. As T when both players start top i would alway expand towards my opponent (only 1 attack path to the 3rd there and i can also shell the HY if needed or guard it from there and nothing you can do against it. Version 2 Here i miss the additional path top / bottom. So i would mix it up like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OghZR.jpg) Expanding toward your opponent on top is a bit harder because you need to cover a lot more area to be save and top bottom has an additional (and already open) path. I also used those ramps next to the HY because it think that's a really good idea from monitor. | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
On May 13 2011 20:13 dezi wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On May 11 2011 19:17 Johanaz wrote: I have done 2 versions of the map with the changes suggested by monitor: Version 1:+ Show Spoiler + Version 1 is close to what monitor suggested except I did not move the gold to replace 3rd base. Version 2 is identical to my original layout but with 2 ramps added by the gold in order to open up the long path to the 3rds. Also, I removed 1 gas at the gold and one mineral patch at the side expos. As both versions address the problem with the long path I´d like to know which revision you guys prefer. Here´s a poll if you want to share your opinion:+ Show Spoiler + Version 1 I miss the additional path removed above the HY. As T when both players start top i would alway expand towards my opponent (only 1 attack path to the 3rd there and i can also shell the HY if needed or guard it from there and nothing you can do against it. Version 2 Here i miss the additional path top / bottom. So i would mix it up like this: Expanding toward your opponent on top is a bit harder because you need to cover a lot more area to be save and top bottom has an additional (and already open) path. I also used those ramps next to the HY because it think that's a really good idea from monitor. Thanks dezi  I think you´ve sketched up a great compromise. I will make it happen ASAP. | ||
|
lovablemikey
264 Posts
I looked at it a little more and I wish the terrain levels were textured differently. The map becomes a big warm grey blob. The overview does, at least. Maybe in game it looks fine. I like it! | ||
|
monitor
United States2409 Posts
On May 13 2011 21:33 Johanaz wrote: Thanks dezi I think you´ve sketched up a great compromise. I will make it happen ASAP. I still think its necessary to remove the rocked natural entrance, because it makes vertical positions too close natural to natural when you break the rocks. | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9xZVk.jpg) -removed natural backdoor-added ramps beside the golds -open an additional passage through center Also updated & added more pics & info to OP. | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
On May 17 2011 19:24 dezi wrote: Why did you made that passage close to the high ground mid that kinda small? It´s the most direct route when spawning top vs bottom (same side), and it´s not covered by the Watchtowers, so I thought it would be best if it was too narrow for a huge army to rush through. | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
I can't help but feel that somethgin essential was lost when you removed the nat rocks. The reason is not the nat itself but rather that the HY vespene bases are so cut off from the main path. In top vs bottom you would in 9 cases out of 10 go through the middle. Those rocked paths simply opened up the map so much more for top vs bottom. I kow it breaks top vs bottom nat distance, but ... what if you move the ramps pointing towards the middle closer to the nat and HY gas expos some? Put it right above and below the gaps in the centre? | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
-Zoda-
France3578 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2409 Posts
On May 17 2011 19:21 Johanaz wrote: Ok guys, thanks a lot for all your feedback. I have implemented the suggested changes: + Show Spoiler + -removed natural backdoor-added ramps beside the golds -open an additional passage through center Also updated & added more pics & info to OP. I like the high yield area a lot more. I feel like the natural ramp is a bit awkward moving around the map, since its so close to the opponent. I think to fix this, you should bring it inwards toward the natural a bit, so its closer to the low ground third. If you want to add rocks back, I guess you could disable the vertical positions. | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
I like the high yield area a lot more. I feel like the natural ramp is a bit awkward moving around the map, since its so close to the opponent. I think to fix this, you should bring it inwards toward the natural a bit, so its closer to the low ground third. This was exactly what I meant, but monitor explained it better  Also, the low ground third is still HY vespene gas? I think it makes sense since the other third is easier to defend... but exactly HOW good is HY vespene gas? Is it like having a 3 gas base (but with less workers) .. someone shoudl do the math. | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
On May 19 2011 03:46 Meltage wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I like the high yield area a lot more. I feel like the natural ramp is a bit awkward moving around the map, since its so close to the opponent. I think to fix this, you should bring it inwards toward the natural a bit, so its closer to the low ground third. This was exactly what I meant, but monitor explained it better Also, the low ground third is still HY vespene gas? I think it makes sense since the other third is easier to defend... but exactly HOW good is HY vespene gas? Is it like having a 3 gas base (but with less workers) .. someone shoudl do the math. Thanks for the input. I will move the ramps closer to the natural, so the distance will be shorter to the low ground thirds. I have closed the gap between the new paths and the central high ground. HY vespene works like HY minerals, that is, they allow workers to hold 6 gas units per trip. That is in effect like a 3 gas expo, except that each geyser still holds 2500 units. About testing:+ Show Spoiler + Last night I hosted a test game, a TvP 11 o´clock vs 2 o´clock where P expanded to 8 o´clock nat & main and T just floated an OC to low ground 3rd. The players felt the map was pretty well balanced off a first glance and that the expos were distributed well compared to their defendability. ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Picon_small.png) Joe played Terran as he likes to off-race against lower ranked friends, when testing my maps. Needless to say it is unbelieveably awesome to have Europes 38th ranked player as an occational test pilot, but still as he puts it: this is not high level, it´s just fun. Until you get progamers to test your map 100+ games you can´t know everything. The best you can do is take advice from more experienced mappers here ^^. | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
Overview+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nirur.jpg) Angled+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HkZJ3.jpg) The MotM judges will use the original version, but with cross spawns only. I submitted this latest revised version as well, in case they change their minds  Thank you all for your great ideas! | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
 | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Maru vs TBD
Maru vs Classic
herO vs Solar
ByuN vs Solar
PiGStarcraft469
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games gofns14663 tarik_tv10378 summit1g1943 JimRising  400C9.Mang0269 WinterStarcraft103 ViBE80 Nathanias10 |
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
SHIN vs Bunny
ByuN vs Shameless
WardiTV Invitational
Krystianer vs TriGGeR
Cure vs Rogue
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Artosis vs TerrOr
spx vs StRyKeR
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Cure vs Zoun
Clem vs Lambo
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
