EPTOn December 11 2011 04:20 JimSocks wrote:
remove those ledges above naturals. terran siege tank drops imba
remove those ledges above naturals. terran siege tank drops imba
It was on the third, and yes it is a very abusive position for terrans.
[M] (4) Burning Altar - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
[17]Purple
United Kingdom3489 Posts
It was on the third, and yes it is a very abusive position for terrans. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On December 11 2011 04:20 JimSocks wrote: remove those ledges above naturals. terran siege tank drops imba I think people specifically look for spots that siege tanks could fucking own from and don't put anymore thought into it. I'm sure if Shakuras Plateau was made here on TL, everyone would whine about the four raised cliffs in the center of the map, complaining that Terran could drop tanks and lock down the center of the map. How many times has that ever happened? 20? How many times has it not ended in a bunch of dead siege tanks? 1? 2? How many Terrans would be willing to drop siege tanks onto the lower ground behind someone's natural, where most or all of the opposing forces are garrisoned at about the time your siege tech is finishing. I'd reckon between stalkers being the primary Protoss fighting force, and overlords being placed to scout drops like that,Terran would have a lot of trouble just getting the tanks to land, never mind keeping them there unscathed. If that land is even pathable. | ||
|
Seiferz
United States640 Posts
On December 11 2011 04:58 Chargelot wrote: I think people specifically look for spots that siege tanks could fucking own from and don't put anymore thought into it. I'm sure if Shakuras Plateau was made here on TL, everyone would whine about the four raised cliffs in the center of the map, complaining that Terran could drop tanks and lock down the center of the map. How many times has that ever happened? 20? How many times has it not ended in a bunch of dead siege tanks? 1? 2? How many Terrans would be willing to drop siege tanks onto the lower ground behind someone's natural, where most or all of the opposing forces are garrisoned at about the time your siege tech is finishing. I'd reckon between stalkers being the primary Protoss fighting force, and overlords being placed to scout drops like that,Terran would have a lot of trouble just getting the tanks to land, never mind keeping them there unscathed. If that land is even pathable. Destiny vs. Noblesse would like to disagree with you. | ||
|
WightyCity
Canada887 Posts
| ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On December 11 2011 05:47 Seiferz wrote: Destiny vs. Noblesse would like to disagree with you. If that game is representative of 100% of the games played on the map, then yes, it disagrees with me. | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
| ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On December 11 2011 05:47 Seiferz wrote: Destiny vs. Noblesse would like to disagree with you. while I see your point, this was a specific situation: the map is new to everyone and (again!) it is the terran who found a way to exploi first ... Sure I now have to read a lot of criticism and rightly so. I really want to thank you guys for showing up here in this part of the TL forums and state your opinion on the map. My first reply has to be, yes, you are right, this can be exploited, but this does not make the map terran favoured yet. I will have to watch the specific situations as soon as I get the VODs. The layout, especially on cross position, does not favour mech at all. The map has many alternative path and while the centre can be controlled easily with controlling several towers, it still needs scouting, good positioning and micro. so i am unsure if a dropable third is that dangerous. But in my opinion the main problem is not a dropable cliff per se, but that the drop-ability varies with the spawn-setups. Maybe I even have to add a second dropable highround to the other side of each third, but then again make sure that the nat cannot be tank-dropped at all. This would allow Fast expansion with only lings and later players have to make sure they can defend a drop, which is reasonable on third. edit: i am working on it and testing a few alternatives regarding those drops. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Bio-Leera
United States65 Posts
I love it because it doesn't need force cross positions. I see people complaining that in certain positions the 3rd is in the attack pathway. example being one bottom right and one bottom left. but it seems impossible to them that the guy in bottom left could take the expansion above his corner. If I had more time I'd get the map and doodle on it to show that even in those positions, the defender has a huge advantage moving between those two bases, while the attacker has very long attack pathways. It's brilliant and an example of the better thinking we need in map making these days. Even if they break the rocks hey have to walk right in front of your natural, which would be in the middle of your base. It forces players to keep good scouting information and responding accordingly, but still with the right information the defender has complete advantage. I'm so tired of these only two possible spawn locations. A map stays fresh by having the possibility of different types of games unfolding on it depending on spawn locations. i love this map | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On December 12 2011 03:44 Bio-Leera wrote: I love this map. I love it because it doesn't need force cross positions. I see people complaining that in certain positions the 3rd is in the attack pathway. example being one bottom right and one bottom left. but it seems impossible to them that the guy in bottom left could take the expansion above his corner. If I had more time I'd get the map and doodle on it to show that even in those positions, the defender has a huge advantage moving between those two bases, while the attacker has very long attack pathways. It's brilliant and an example of the better thinking we need in map making these days. Even if they break the rocks hey have to walk right in front of your natural, which would be in the middle of your base. It forces players to keep good scouting information and responding accordingly, but still with the right information the defender has complete advantage. I'm so tired of these only two possible spawn locations. A map stays fresh by having the possibility of different types of games unfolding on it depending on spawn locations. i love this map thank you very much. this is what i had in mind when the map was designed. especially middle terrain that keeps you on yopur toes wheater you are in the lead or not. you need the scouting information to use the terrain in your favour. edit: regarding the drop issue - the nat is made defendable by queens (reach=3), need some more thinking about third being defendavle with roaches with our without highground vision. have to figure that out. expect an even more balanced map. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On December 12 2011 04:27 Samro225am wrote: edit: regarding the drop issue - the nat is made defendable by queens (reach=3), need some more thinking about third being defendavle with roaches with our without highground vision. have to figure that out. expect an even more balanced map. Just played another game on it, and I noticed the edges of some pieces of water sticking out here and there. They're simple to fix, but look unpolished. I suppose you can work this into your next update as well. If it's fixed in your version but not the TLMC one, never mind. Just something I spotted. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
First and foremost I adress the tank drop issue. For me it is important to conserve tank drop options, but do not make it imba in any way. most important part is the drop pod. now it is easily defendable with two spinecrawler OR two queens + spinecrawler: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0owvD.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/15bPX.jpg) the area of hit-able area in the main is also drastically decreased in order to make sure there won't be anything like Alive's cliff tank-drop abuse. Marines signify the tank's reach: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8NQZ8.jpg) please note that Reapers and Colossi are still able to walk up the main's cliffs. these images show a wip. actual changes in v1.1 are different | ||
|
Acnologia
Australia410 Posts
 | ||
|
FakeDeath
Malaysia6060 Posts
On December 16 2011 07:26 Samro225am wrote: i am working on a general update (balance tweak, pathing, visual things) First and foremost I adress the tank drop issue. For me it is important to conserve tank drop options, but do not make it imba in any way. most important part is the drop pod. now it is easily defendable with two spinecrawler OR two queens + spinecrawler: the area of hit-able area in the main is also drastically decreased in order to make sure there won't be anything like Alive's cliff tank-drop abuse. Marines signify the tank's reach: please note that Reapers and Colossi are still able to walk up the main's cliffs. As a zerg player, I find this better than Lost Temple ridiculous siege position on the cliff beside the natural. But, although it is easily defended by spines and queens. That tank line can still siege the 3rd base and the main if there is marine support. I got not much to say about this map except about that Destiny vs Noblesse game.It was painful to watch though how Noblesse exploit those positions.However,we still cant justify whether it is abusive or not since it is not yet tested extensively by many pro players. | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [new third] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ipelC.jpg) + Show Spoiler [new overview] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W0V2E.jpg) have fun! | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
HyDrA_solic
Portugal491 Posts
| ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:27 HyDrA_solic wrote: I agree with u Fish, I find this somehow much more attractive than Tal'darim. Send it to Blizzard OP. While I also really like this map, the thirds are a little far. It makes toss hard to play especially, resulting in tons of 2 base all-ins. Also, tal'darim is actually the most balanced ladder map according to the playhem daily. Nearly 50% exactly in all matchups. | ||
|
HyDrA_solic
Portugal491 Posts
On February 29 2012 11:51 RumbleBadger wrote: While I also really like this map, the thirds are a little far. It makes toss hard to play especially, resulting in tons of 2 base all-ins. Also, tal'darim is actually the most balanced ladder map according to the playhem daily. Nearly 50% exactly in all matchups. I know tal'darim is balanced but quite old ;( | ||
| ||
