| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
On August 04 2011 06:41 dezi wrote: 5 fucking bases in that small area ... GJ on ruining the map so far with *not that good* input. Hence why they are suggestions. Also if you read what it said I said maybe keep that extra 4th base there depending how much space there is. But yeah, nvm, guess since it's not your suggestion it's not good apparently. | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
Let's say it's a TvT or a PvT that gets end game and you both have 3rds, then it's going to be hard to get a 4th since you either take one of the bases in the middle of the map or take the one to the side of your main but then you have to hope it doesn't get scouted because trying to move forces from that base to your 3rd is a huge distance plus there are no chokes what so ever to help. I guess I don't see a problem if it is more cramped with bases because then at least the bases are easier to take and therefore means the game will most likely get off 2 base and be much more interesting. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On August 04 2011 07:11 dezi wrote: The whole area is already cramped. I liked his initial draft. Somestimes feedback is just bad and can be a hindrance. Lol. Feedback is never bad. Period. No matter what, it's up to the author what he does with the map. Feedback offers different perspectives on a map- sometimes good suggestions, sometimes bad suggestions. The author has the final say on what he does-- he has to pick the good feedback that uses specific examples and explanations to why to make a change. So in the future, give feedback using very specific examples and reasoning behind changes. To help map judging, play the game more and/or look at some of the good and popular maps. That being said --- I agree that having 5 bases there is too cluttered because holding them all is very easily by controlling a few chokes, and then you can just turtle up. It'll make games pretty boring with few back and forth battles and harass. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u1UL6.jpg) | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On August 05 2011 02:33 IronManSC wrote: I've been breaking my back over these changes to the 3rd all day yesterday, so I will leave it be (current version) for several more tests and see where it goes from there. I don't think revamping the entire 3rd (and even adding an extra base) is necessary. Alright, good decision. Add me on NA @ Pawp 693 if you want me to test it, I'd be glad to. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ubKBb.jpg) I think your tileset is interesting but these areas of grass look too "airbrushed" on maybe blend them more with the rocky or another one? | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
0.4 Changes: 1) The 3rds have been reduced to 1 open ramp facing the center, with a back-door blocked by rocks. New 3rd:+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UU5IY.jpg) 2) Textures were polished in various places where they appeared "airbrushed" 3) Pathing fixed | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
0.5 Changes: 1) The mains were slightly increased in size, allowing a little more room to build. 2) An additional Xel'Naga Watch Tower was added in the center, but both towers are not placed elsewhere to give each player defensive/offensive advantages. 3) The primary ramp into the natural was reduced from 3-width to 2-width, and can now be walled off. 4) The 3-width ramp to the 3rd base was moved over slightly toward the natural. 5) Map borders extended. 6) Textures, water, lighting and foliage polished. | ||
|
Arnfasta
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On August 08 2011 05:30 Arnfasta wrote: Map looks really interesting, I'll have to give a try. My question on the XWT, it seems like taking a XWT is easy in this map. Both players can take theirs and be safe as opposed to the original design which had one XWT which players fought for. The player who had it, had a significant advantage in terms of vision. Why the second one with both in close proximity over the center of the map? Due to several master games (mostly master randoms), we've seen a lot of TvT matches that showed the tower being in favor of whichever terran used it. This gave immediate map-control to whoever took it. With two towers, each player has a particular zone of vision, so one cannot be totally caught off-guard. Games often appear as "stalemates" when you control your own tower, but it further promotes the necessity to change up the strategy and counter act what your opponent is doing, whereas having a single tower in the center literally limited the defendant and pushed him back on 2, mabye 3-base hoping to not get attacked, and not knowing when he would get attacked, because with a single tower, whoever doesn't have it has no real scouting capabilities whatsoever. Now, you might say that all a person has to do is send a unit or two toward the tower and see what units he has, but a single tower in the center would be covered by LoS, which again is limiting on scouting capabilities for the defendant (or, the one who doesn't have the tower). His units trying to scout the tower would be shot down by ranged units, and you can't see very much of what you're attacked by --- it leaves you guessing --- let alone they are covered by LoS. The other reason was that a single tower often limited the games to 2-base play. Without a proper scouting zone in the defendant's favor, taking a 3rd is extremely risky because he won't know when it will get attacked, and if he can't prepare for it, he will lose the investment. This is the other reason why 2 towers were added. The defendant can now see his opponent coming and prepare accordingly if he's on 3+ bases. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On an aesthetic note: this and Beach have me wanting to do something similar, but also a bit different. It's a great looking map, and lots of the stuff I'm seeing really serve as cool inspiration. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
Destructible Rocks leading into the 3rds are now reduced from 3 to 1 armor, and 2000 to 1000 health. This allows a quicker opportunity to take a safer 3rd. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
1) Mineral placements at the main/natural/3rds were re-done 2) The 1x ramp on the 4th/5th (middle side bases) were increased to 3x to allow better flow. 3) A 3rd ramp was added to the 3rds, blocked by rocks and covered by LoSB. 4) Textures polished, pathing and lighting fixed. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Also, one of the more unconventional contest finalists, so double kudos. ;D | ||
|
TheAmazombie
United States3714 Posts
On November 10 2011 04:03 IronManSC wrote: OP updated. Map has become a finalist in the TL Map-Making Contest. If you are interested in play testing it, search [TLMC] on battle.net. All comments, suggestions, and feedback are appreciated! Hey IronMan, congrats to you and your team on becoming a finalist with this map! It is a great one and let's hope you get chosen for the winner. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Counter-Strike  45872Calm  6216Bisu 2937EffOrt 978Stork 592Soma 549firebathero  340Mini 292Rush 266Soulkey 264[ Show more ] Other Games singsing2023 FrodaN1754 B2W.Neo743 hiko547 Beastyqt490 RotterdaM347 DeMusliM222 mouzStarbuck170 KnowMe158 QueenE118 Trikslyr41 Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
RSL Revival
TriGGeR vs Cure
ByuN vs Rogue
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Maru vs MaxPax
BSL
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
