EPT[M] (4) Middle Kingdom - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
adso
718 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I'll be back later when I've decided what I think. | ||
|
Mammel
Finland189 Posts
1. Too big, but thats just personal preference. I just don't feel that making the map huge has positive impact on games. 2. Sitting at large ramp on 3rd basicly covers every attack path. It simply negates any harass to 3rd that you meant to be easily harassable even though it's so close. That makes 3rd basicly free to take even though you tried to make it not to. 3. Main is way too vulnerable to drops when terran spawn to your right at top/left at bottom. Fly time is like 3 seconds and the area where you can drop is huge. Since the layout is what it is, you can't even tell whether his going to doomdrop you or not depending on his armys location becouse the best location to keep your units is exactly where you would load the dropships. | ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [New Skin for Center Bases] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oq2Cb.jpg) For Sid: + Show Spoiler [Tanks Can't Siege Main Resources] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y3SUd.jpg) On May 28 2011 11:25 Mammel wrote: That's your prerogative. Don't really like it. 1. Too big, but thats just personal preference. I just don't feel that making the map huge has positive impact on games.  For reference Middle Kingdom is 152x152, so:Metalopolis(140x) < Typhon Peaks(144x) < Middle Kingdom(152x) < Terminus(160x) < Tal'Darim Altar(176x) On May 28 2011 11:25 Mammel wrote: I don't agree that the 3-base is so easily protected, but okay. Have you considered that the main and ample airspace behind the natural are purposefully enticing so that an army sitting out at the large ramp by the third (your point 2.) will be out of position to defend a drop or air harass?2. Sitting at large ramp on 3rd basicly covers every attack path. It simply negates any harass to 3rd that you meant to be easily harassable even though it's so close. That makes 3rd basicly free to take even though you tried to make it not to. 3. Main is way too vulnerable to drops when terran spawn to your right at top/left at bottom. Fly time is like 3 seconds and the area where you can drop is huge. Since the layout is what it is, you can't even tell whether his going to doomdrop you or not depending on his armys location becouse the best location to keep your units is exactly where you would load the dropships. I need to get some data, of course, but I'm thinking there is a good balance between holding those 3 base and cracking those 3 base. | ||
|
adso
718 Posts
| ||
|
SmashHammer
United States148 Posts
idea/suggestion to think about ---> + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cXxm2.png) if you make the red area low ground and leave the yellow high-ground, then equalize the green openings. this would make the attack paths somewhat even no matter what the spawns are. The third would still be a little imbalanced but less so because players have to defend the around the purple line anyways. kinda changes the spirit of the map  -or- i think just removing the middle protrusion would help some. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On May 28 2011 11:54 dimfish wrote: I don't agree that the 3-base is so easily protected, but okay. Have you considered that the main and ample airspace behind the natural are purposefully enticing so that an army sitting out at the large ramp by the third (your point 2.) will be out of position to defend a drop or air harass? I need to get some data, of course, but I'm thinking there is a good balance between holding those 3 base and cracking those 3 base. Well, seeing this, I think that the encouraged drop play may increase rotational imbalance. It may be even as far as "balance" goes, but one player's main might be easily dropable while the other's third is more vulnerable. In theory it could even out, but it's very hard to be sure of that in any matchup, not to mention giving some playing styles advantages and disadvantages in various positions. I think maps should be viewed as a canvas for the players. They should be able to play in their own style despite the spawn positions. I don't think it's fair to limit one player's strategies one way while limiting the other's strategies a different way, on the same map. As far as what you were saying about balance between third safety and vulnerability, and the balance with the vulnerabilities to drops and air harass, I do agree. | ||
|
Archivian
United Kingdom362 Posts
The only problem I think imhp. Is the close 3rd next to the nat. I made a map before where I had a small 3rd that was easily harassable close to nat. But when it came to testing, It seemed to give Protoss an advantage more than other races (before 4wg change). Nearly every tester complained that Protoss had too much advantage, even those protoss that played it. So in the end I removed it. I wonder if this would be a similar issue. Other than that this map is great. | ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
Also, does anyone know what that thread is called for finding volunteers to host on other servers? | ||
|
zasta
United Kingdom99 Posts
The only think I would change is the middle ground Xel Naga. I know you've said specifically why you want that on a high ground but it effectively means there's not one single wide open area on the map, and I think that it would be nice to have a more Shattered temple type Xel Naga, particularly as you've got so many alternative attack routes anyway. Also, just to check, could a reaper or Colossus cliff walk straight into the main from the fourth? | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10383 Posts
It seems like a good map for mech! (need more of those!) With mech you can secure the third pretty easily or even the fourth! | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
adso
718 Posts
| ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
And thank you adso, I couldn't remember the "Custom Map Upload Exchange" but I will now!! | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 28 2011 13:40 SmashHammer wrote: This map has a sweet layout and visuals. I love how the third base forces you to defend below the cliff if you take it. Definitely want to see more maps do stuff like this. On the other hand I think there is some slight rotational imbalance because of the the orientation of the third base. Also because the protrusion sticking out into the middle blocks the clockwise player (if not cross positions) from sweeping around to deny the third without going really out of the way or up that smallish choke. idea/suggestion to think about ---> + Show Spoiler + if you make the red area low ground and leave the yellow high-ground, then equalize the green openings. this would make the attack paths somewhat even no matter what the spawns are. The third would still be a little imbalanced but less so because players have to defend the around the purple line anyways. kinda changes the spirit of the map -or- i think just removing the middle protrusion would help some. Don't get rid of the middle protrusion!! That's the sort of thing that makes this map stand out. You could change it perhaps... the version (highlighted in yellow lines) where it's a forward platform is okay. -_- Dimfish put work into how the expansions after 2base play out, and we have yet to decide how successfully. I think the real achievement is creating a map with immediate general appeal which includes non-obligatory terrain whose non-obvious use is revealed by deeper play bewteen experts. And I think that extension of the high ground is exactly that sort of terrain. Nevertheless I agree that there are rotational inequities of some significance. As you say, they may or may not "equal out", and they may or may not be strictly purely balanced. But that is part of the charm of a rotational map, and that sort of "imbalance" plays into the opening of the game, scouting and early build order, etc. I don't see a glaring problem. + Show Spoiler [Unconventional option] + Here's a crazy ideaTM to improve the position of the clockwise player (in a scenario with adjacent spawns and 3base vs 3base): The extended high ground area has a watchtower. Too much, right? It's a custom watchtower with a smaller vision range. Possible further customization: it has a directional field of vision, like a wide flashlight beam (45-90 deg) facing out over the low ground. Possible refinement: its vision beam sweeps back and forth in a 180 arc facing out over the cliff edge. This would help the clockwise player by letting them push forward to cover those multiple attack routes (which are so much harder for them to reach against the ACC player). I am not 100% on how you could create a "searchlight" watchtower, but I think this map is the perfect testing ground for this kind of novelty. Think about how prodig uses destructible towers, and that after testing it made sense to give them shields. It seems like a good fit, if someone can assemble the proper settings in the editor. This solution would also give that extended high ground area increased purpose, which might vindicate its existence for people who don't like it as much. | ||
|
lovablemikey
264 Posts
The bad thing about new layouts is that I can't say much. I can speculate all day but testing is where it's at. Post some replays; I command it! | ||
|
dimfish
United States663 Posts
| ||
| ||
