EPT[M] (2) Ohana - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
0.3 Changes: (balance changes) 1) The back-door to the natural (next to the 3rd with rocks) was re-worked and can no longer allow pylon warp-ins into the natural from the high-ground 3rd. New Back-door with rocks - can no longer warp-in units from the high ground into the natural: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/89xdS.jpg) 2) XWT range reduced by 2 and can no longer peek onto the high ground ramps in the center. Before: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RqSKV.jpg) After: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fwjaI.jpg) | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
| ||
|
Proko
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On August 03 2011 04:35 monitor wrote: I forgot about the main issue one of my maps had (it had the identical main/nat/third setup). That was that the third was too far, and wasn't possible to hold because it was so far away and open to attacks. I think the solution would be to add an easier expansion, but keep the current third. Maybe put an expansion against the main? This is a consideration. I was thinking of transforming one of the bases into golds, but if not I will add one near the main base facing the center, only problem is it will be close to the low-ground base. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On August 03 2011 05:36 IronManSC wrote: This is a consideration. I was thinking of transforming one of the bases into golds, but if not I will add one near the main base facing the center, only problem is it will be close to the low-ground base. True. You could put it on the low-ground between the natural and third, and make that tree area smaller? | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QZW5W.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JfAU2.jpg) Now, it's very close 4-base play, but this could be resolved if I block the entrance to the high ground 3rd/4th (like shattered temple). | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On August 03 2011 06:24 IronManSC wrote: Ok, I tried this out monitor... what do you think? + Show Spoiler [Images] + Now, it's very close 4-base play, but this could be resolved if I block the entrance to the high ground 3rd/4th (like shattered temple). That looks pretty good. I would adjust it a little bit, something like this so that the low ground expo is easier to hold, and the high ground expo is harder to hold. It would also make it slightly less awkward (less moving your army around in weird spots). | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
I tried 2 ramps and it looks funky, not to mention how easy it would be to park tanks and fire across the low ground into the other base, so I edited the ramp a little, as well as the minerals and moved them closer to the nat ramp and came up with this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mVoz9.jpg) This is similar to Shattered Temple, where you must destroy the rocks to take the base. The 3rd on low ground is designed to encourage more expanding because of limited resources, so you have a choice for a hidden base (near the main), or a high ground base but can take time to get to. My only big worry or concern is that this could be too easy to defend on 4-base play. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On August 04 2011 03:47 IronManSC wrote: @monitor: I tried 2 ramps and it looks funky, not to mention how easy it would be to park tanks and fire across the low ground into the other base, so I edited the ramp a little, as well as the minerals and moved them closer to the nat ramp and came up with this: This is similar to Shattered Temple, where you must destroy the rocks to take the base. The 3rd on low ground is designed to encourage more expanding because of limited resources, so you have a choice for a hidden base (near the main), or a high ground base but can take time to get to. My only big worry or concern is that this could be too easy to defend on 4-base play. Mmmm.... I donnu. I don't really like it that it's an island (it'll be easy for Terran, and a pain for Zerg), but I guess it could work out. If you just broke down your backdoor rocks, wouldn't that make it pretty easy to turtle on 4 bases? [edit] I would keep the ramps like they are in the OP. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
I don't know what you mean 'keep the ramps like they are in the OP', could you elaborate? | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dOkmR.jpg) In this picture, the larger rocks are removed, but the ramp is pushed out more, making it a longer distance to actually get to the high ground base (to reinforce or saturate) unless you break the back-door rocks down. Now, you still cannot warp-in from the high ground into the natural, and if your low-ground 3rd is being seiged, you can attack them by running up the ramp. I think this is the best option personally, as there is flow to every way of playing around it. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On August 04 2011 04:02 IronManSC wrote: Ok, I did a quick change and personally this feels like the only way to go if there's going to be a low-ground base there: In this picture, the larger rocks are removed, but the ramp is pushed out more, making it a longer distance to actually get to the high ground base (to reinforce or saturate) unless you break the back-door rocks down. Now, you still cannot warp-in from the high ground into the natural, and if your low-ground 3rd is being seiged, you can attack them by running up the ramp. I think this is the best option personally, as there is flow to every way of playing around it. Alright I spose that's fine. I'll try to give it some more thought, you might have to rework that 3rd/4th area completely to make it work though. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
Made By: Monitor lol. Is there a reason you want that little low ground area to seperate the nat & the 3rd? Why not just keep it lowground & put the third closer to the natural and add some high ground & rocks between the 3rd/4th. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DOvNa.jpg) Orange = lowground, green = highground, brown = rocks, blue = places for minerals | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/767C5.jpg) | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Gg2Cp.jpg) | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dbT3H.jpg) | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [My Ideas] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zddcF.jpg) I would do something like this for a few reasons. Primarily, it goes more options to where you take a 3rd, and makes each option very viable. Here is a drawing I made: + Show Spoiler [My Reasoning] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OxRUD.jpg) Basically you've got the option of taking an aggressive third, that shortens the distance to the opponent, or you can take one that makes the distance farther. Each base leads to another base- the middle bases are gold to encourage taking them as a 4th. I adjusted a lot of ramps slightly (yes, it wasn't just me being sloppy- I actually meant to move them) to make the expansions easier to defend and harder to attack into. However, I opened up some of the middle area to make aggression easier for Zerg. I also adjusted the minerals on the lowground side expo (you'd take it as a 4th base) so that its more vulnerable to air harass, and isn't protected by the main. [edit] My numbers are all screwed up because I labeled the natural 1... | ||
| ||
