| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
spawns: 2 size: 124x124 bases: 10regular +2highyield concept: small air distance, alternative third theme: Port Zion hinterland with lots of toxic waste n2n: 113AU + Show Spoiler [overvie+analyzer] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vf3Yul.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pDJ2Tl.jpg) + Show Spoiler [bases] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OfPBvl.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tAQScl.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i010Vl.jpg) + Show Spoiler [m2m+n2n] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6Tb1ol.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dM1rBl.png) + Show Spoiler [changes] + 0.2 pathing remade, was bugged by a badly placed dynamic pathblocker | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
Gl!tch
United States573 Posts
Not sure if i like that theres an accesable area behind the natural, i see alot of blink and sige tank abuse. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On October 31 2011 11:45 Antares777 wrote: I really like the low ground cliff behind the natural, there's so much potential for some interesting harassment techniques to go on there. Unfortunately, everything else is pretty generic and the map feels a lot like Razed/Shrike. The layout of the maps are similar. I understand you reasoning that things seem a bit generic, compared that similar layouts were also realized in Shrike and Razed (nice somebody remembers them actually).Still if you look at the layouts and compare them there are rather big differences and number of bases and layout, very different apporaches with the paths, width of chokes, etc. Put this is not something i say to defend the map. let me explain a bit about the design process and why i did it really: + Show Spoiler + I actually took all these old ideas and made this map from scratch. because i felt that the map got a few things i really liked and that set it appart from other maps and i had some ideas for tweaks and additional features i wanted to implent. Often i have the feeling that some ideas do not get enough plays and need extra work over a big period of time until they work as intended. So take this map as the possibly last point in a series of five or six variantions on a theme where three were published as maps on there own and the others were mere versions.As i said there or some things distinctivly different like the ramp into gold, other openeness of paths into the nat, bit further away long ground third than before, one base less, simpler and easiert to read layout while it still has the shape of an hourglass and bends around like an '8'. I think if you look at how different the maps play in specific situations, it is not generic any longer. Also the term 'generic' is off really, all bases flow well into each other. there is no montage of well working features put together without any additional thought ( beside the gold + base above area). there is no bubble design (place size 16brush here and add ramp to form third). This is a well thought throufgh and slowly tweaked design, that fits different playing styles, offers variety in expansion layouts, chokes, open spaces...So i would rather sday this map fortunatly is a bit like shrike, but it works very differently (quite good actually  )and as you said: harassment. this map is made for harassment and attacks from air, ninja bases,etc. you need to scout, the map opens up with every base you take. sometimes you have to get a map just out and played; sometimes a map needs additional work to actually play like intended. so don't see it as a re-make, but rather than a coming together and blending of lots of ideas. On October 31 2011 12:07 Gl!tch wrote: I like the idea of rocks in the middle of a ramp that dont block it, but make some realy narrow chokes (are they 1 forcefield on each side?) the smallest ramp goes from the forward third down to gold and is a double width compared to a regular main's ramp, hence you need two forcefields. A smaller ramp would not work here if you have to march through bigger armies. Also i think a mid-game attack down here should not retreat into safety with only one forcfield. The really wide ramp is four main ramps wide with the rocks blocking the middle. Each open side can be blocked with one well placed forfield, but i have seen small unitsslowly being pushed through, too. the ramp up to the natural is a triple ramp btw. together with the ramp along the front-third-plateau it is closer to an open choke like meta or XNC than to a highround natural. On October 31 2011 12:07 Gl!tch wrote: Not sure if i like that theres an accesable area behind the natural, i see alot of blink and sige tank abuse. the area behind the nat is accesable, but due to its position not as lethal as the siege-prone naturals in TaldarimAltar. see it the other way round, it is a low cliff that needs vision to be used to attack, the 'cliff' is reachable from your non-air units and retreating forces can be cut off! | ||
|
Duvon
Sweden2360 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On November 01 2011 02:21 Duvon wrote: One of the geysers on the top/bottom base seems to protect the shelf in question though. big units like tanks can not move into the area by themselves, but would need to be dropped. On November 01 2011 02:29 a176 wrote: personally, i think the xnt covers too much of the map, as in, virtually all army movement can be seen by the towers. this could also be a result of the paths themselves, but regardless, there should be an option of some kind of hidden/stealth counter attack path without the requirement of drop tech to get units around the tower. thinking about it, too. in general a smaller radius would be great, that is for sure. right now smaller groups can be led out of your nat to the thirds in case you loose control on your side's tower. which is important. also you can reach the midground third without being spotted. | ||
|
dc302
Australia576 Posts
 | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On November 01 2011 02:33 Samro225am wrote: thinking about it, too. in general a smaller radius would be great, that is for sure. right now smaller groups can be led out of your nat to the thirds in case you loose control on your side's tower. which is important. also you can reach the midground third without being spotted. well, i try not to modify xnt radius anymore; i tried it with my other maps and it kind of looks silly when there is a reduced vision area. why not just use 1 xnt in the center? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Stormgate  42140Killer  10611Bisu 1715Shuttle 1499ggaemo 843Hyuk 568Zeus 507Mini 372Last  279Tasteless 222[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games singsing1560 B2W.Neo1017 crisheroes314 mouzStarbuck287 RotterdaM215 Fuzer  197Hui .181 hiko102 KnowMe73 ArmadaUGS32 rGuardiaN31 QueenE13 ZerO(Twitch)11 |
|
|
EPT
