|
|
|
On November 13 2011 18:19 Modernist wrote:
Great map!
One complaint: sooooooo much air space around the edges!
If you're judging by the picture, it lies. In game, its much better. If you're judging from in game, then not sure what to say. I think its perfectly fine, though I appreciate the feedback 
|
@modernist:
Do not be deceived by the map borders. That is actually one of the pinpoints, and most crucial elements of map-making. The map borders are not actually that wide while playing in-game because the playable bounds are near the bases themselves. The extended map borders (with aesthetics) are only there to prevent black borders from showing up in-game which look terribly sloppy.
|
Been messing around with the aesthetics, mostly with the water. Here is what I've come up with.
Variation 1
+ Show Spoiler +
Variation 2
+ Show Spoiler +
If you have other ideas, let me know.
|
I'm partial to multi-level water which is severely lacking in maps out there, so I vote for 2. If you do that, you should also add a falls at the upper lake, the spring where the water comes out of the ground and starts the flow to the ocean. Otherwise you have a random lake uphill from the flow. And who doesn't like more waterfalls? ^^
|
Got analyzer working and posted analyzer pictures.
|
Just updated for 1.5 which was an aesthetics update. Only physical map change was the removal of the experimental curtain on the extended land mass that wraps around the main.
|
The only part of this map that I find difficult strategically is the late-game with the single xel'naga tower in the center. Once someone holds that position (especially a terran w/ siege tanks), it seems that defending the forward 4th base is difficult since the opposing forces will have to split up to defend the two ramps (note that the tower is *very* close to the minerals at the fourths). Additionally, since the low-ground counter attack path is on the low ground, it is especially easy to shut down counter attacks with siege tank fire from the high ground. Also, with *HUGE* margin space around the edge of the maps, and relatively close-by-air mains, I would expect alot of drop play on this map.
I think a possible solution could be to simply remove the xel'naga watchtower, not every map has to have one, even though it is the trend, or two watchtowers, one on each side of the map.
Picture included for your viewing pleasure! (I love to draw )
+ Show Spoiler +
|
your Country52798 Posts
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
|
On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right.
The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?).
As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such.
100 is a short nat-to-nat distance.
I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
|
On November 18 2011 00:26 TehTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such. 100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance.
I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
What's the actual distance?
|
On November 18 2011 00:29 Phried wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 00:26 TehTemplar wrote:On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such. 100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance. I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think.
Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke).
Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out.
What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent.
So main to main distance is not really important at all.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On November 18 2011 00:29 Phried wrote:
What's the actual distance?
139
|
your Country52798 Posts
On November 18 2011 01:19 NullCurrent wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 00:29 Phried wrote:On November 18 2011 00:26 TehTemplar wrote:On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such. 100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance. I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think. Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke). Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent. So main to main distance is not really important at all.
Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main.
|
On November 18 2011 02:39 TehTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 01:19 NullCurrent wrote:On November 18 2011 00:29 Phried wrote:On November 18 2011 00:26 TehTemplar wrote:On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such. 100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance. I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think. Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke). Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent. So main to main distance is not really important at all. Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main.
Not actually true at all.
|
On November 18 2011 04:03 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 02:39 TehTemplar wrote:On November 18 2011 01:19 NullCurrent wrote:On November 18 2011 00:29 Phried wrote:On November 18 2011 00:26 TehTemplar wrote:On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such. 100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance. I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think. Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke). Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent. So main to main distance is not really important at all. Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main. Not actually true at all.
I think he means (2 *(mainToPersonalNat) + natToNat) or (2*(main2nat) - nat2nat).
He IS right that the two are directly related. Main2Nat(opponent) is correlated to what the main2main is (obviously). main2main and nat2nat are just different ways of measuring the same information.
139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
edit: Never mind, wasn't thinking straight
|
On November 18 2011 04:23 Phried wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 04:03 Sea_Food wrote:On November 18 2011 02:39 TehTemplar wrote:On November 18 2011 01:19 NullCurrent wrote:On November 18 2011 00:29 Phried wrote:On November 18 2011 00:26 TehTemplar wrote:On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such. 100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance. I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think. Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke). Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent. So main to main distance is not really important at all. Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main. Not actually true at all. I think he means (2 *(mainToPersonalNat) + natToNat) or (2*(main2nat) - nat2nat). He IS right that the two are directly related. Main2Nat(opponent) is correlated to what the main2main is (obviously). main2main and nat2nat are just different ways of measuring the same information. 139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
If you looked at an analyzer picture (example in this OP), you would see that all main to main paths dont go trough the natural bases.
|
On November 18 2011 04:32 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 04:23 Phried wrote:On November 18 2011 04:03 Sea_Food wrote:On November 18 2011 02:39 TehTemplar wrote:On November 18 2011 01:19 NullCurrent wrote:On November 18 2011 00:29 Phried wrote:On November 18 2011 00:26 TehTemplar wrote:On November 17 2011 23:56 RumbleBadger wrote:On November 17 2011 22:33 TehTemplar wrote:
Rush distance is too short.
Also, the third seems very hard to take because the entire left side is incredibly open. The average openness of 4.04 is misleading because you have a lot of small, narrow passageways on the right. The rush distance isn't too short. It's well over 100, and really a map maker is just trying to avoid the fiasco that is close positions metal or shattered (around 60 rush iirc?). As for the openness, it's just part of the dynamic of the map. A zerg player will be able to expand well into the more open areas late game so a terran or toss will want to pressure early to deny bases. For P and T the extra expansions can be very helpful but require lots of resources to hold, forcing them to be very careful with their timings and such. 100 is a short nat-to-nat distance. I suggest having at least 150 as a main to main distance. I think the rule of thumb is generally 145-175. I'm pretty sure that hits the extremes on each end of acceptable. Generally you want 150-165 I think. Personally I don't think main to main distance really matters, as long as it is not a map where you have a backdoor expo like in Crevasse or so. The important thing is that it is not too long from the main to the natural, so you can easily creep your way there (and also have a somewhat short distance to the walloff for the main/nat choke). Then you have the natural to natural distance. This will determine how easy it will be to prepare to defend an attack you see coming and will also help define if the map favors rushes or not. Longer distance = easier to hold the natural, that is why steppes of war was so horrible; very short natural to natural distance resulted in almost no time to prepare when you see your opponent moving out. What I think is acceptable here is everything over 115 Analyzer units (~35 sec, iirc), and not too large for the map as that will make it too hard to scout your opponent. So main to main distance is not really important at all. Main to nat+nat to nat=main to main. Not actually true at all. I think he means (2 *(mainToPersonalNat) + natToNat) or (2*(main2nat) - nat2nat). He IS right that the two are directly related. Main2Nat(opponent) is correlated to what the main2main is (obviously). main2main and nat2nat are just different ways of measuring the same information. 139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so. If you looked at an analyzer picture (example in this OP), you would see that all main to main paths dont go trough the natural bases.
Touche.
I guess I overlooked the fact that the natural isn't necessarily (or even generally) on the main2main path. In any case, the main2main is still pretty short and should be extended. It's called rush distance for a reason.
|
139 is very short as well. If I'm not mistaken, Steppes of War is only 138(?). It would be a good idea to try and bump that up to 150 or so.
Where 139 is short, keep in mind that the analyzer is judging that by going through the narrow entrance to the natural with the high ground of the main beside it. Sticking a marine or stalker on the high ground can deny any scout coming through, and the small entrance plus the high ground gives the defender an advantage when engaging there. The other entrance which is further also isn't very open, and the defender can utilize the narrow entrance for flanks. Thus, Havens is much different than Steppes of War since the natural is easier to defend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OuNG5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RwgBL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gJXbt.jpg)
