[M] (2) Glacial Station WIP

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

November 29 2011 02:30 GMT

Here is my latest project at a glance. Still an untextured beauty, but I've made some changes with the layout and terrain. Feedback is more than welcome.

Overview
[image loading]

Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +

Main-Main= 45 seconds
Nat-Nat= 35 seconds

Size: 130x165

Change Log
+ Show Spoiler +

Overview

Analyzer

130x165
Main-Main= 36 seconds (in game)
Nat-Nat= 36 seconds (in game)

Aesthetics are bound to change, obviously. Mostly looking into an ice climate map, but could change my mind and do a space platform like map instead. Not too sure at this point.

Edit: Grammar and typos

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

November 29 2011 02:36 GMT

Good map, maybe mains are too big. My 2 main concerns are:
-Main ramp points away from nat, really far main-nat distance.
-Easiest 3 bases.
I would say that this map is zerg unfavored for these reasons.

Mashmed

Sweden198 Posts

November 29 2011 02:40 GMT

If I may suggest some things.

· I think the main choke could be moved a bit to allow for a wall-off

· Not quite sure but isnt this a bit choky? Getting good concaves here as a zerg mainly might be a bit hard.

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

November 29 2011 02:53 GMT

So, I suppose I'll make it a bit more open by reducing some chokes within the middle, and fix the main to nat distance cause that can be an issue with drop and muta reaction time :/

Still not sure whether to add an island/semi island between mains or not. If anyone has any thoughts on that, would be awesome

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

November 29 2011 03:21 GMT

The mains are too big, they should be 40 CCs at a max.

I think the fourth and fifth make sense BUT I don't see them coming into play very much. With 3 easy full bases I see a lot of turtling and Deathball pushes going on here. Especially cos the rush path is pretty direct and you can hardly outmaneuver your opponent.
At least all the bases have an air vulnerability I guess...

What I also don't like if the expansions are so clearly assigned to the players. There's no expansion you fight over, just your 5 bases and the enemy's 5 bases. I wish there was on more expansion between the mains. I think an island would help Zergs make even more use of mutas and stay ahead 1 base of the opponent. Especially when the enemy decides to turtle on 3 base. Also you'd use space better, right now it's such a big gap.

I wish instead of the tower there was a highground or something in the middle. I don't like a tower directly in the attacking path, I know you want to put some emphasis on holding the middle but tower in the midddle... dunno seems unimaginative. Towers like that tend to dumb down the game I feel. Makes good scouting and army control less important.

So yeah this is solid work for a newcomer but quite some flaws. I wonder, will you be doing mirrored 2p maps like that forever?

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

November 29 2011 04:13 GMT

Good feedback good to hear. Learned lots. As far as 2p mirrored maps, i think not. I drew out many maps during a super boring 80 min class, this just happened to be one of them, and the first i put into the editor. I have a few 4p map ideas as well

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

November 29 2011 05:16 GMT

--- Nuked ---

RumbleBadger

322 Posts

November 29 2011 05:24 GMT

So I have a few ideas that you can take or leave. Overall, good map though, especially for your second one (though it's hard to top the success you've had with the first one).

Some notes: Mains way too big (generally you want from between 30 to 35 because smaller than that and it's hard to get a good amount of production and too big you get drop problems and it becomes hard to defend your own main and that's bad). Easy fix though, just push the mineral lines towards the natural a little and then take off the space. Make sure that you can't siege the main from anywhere on the third though.
Like others have mentioned, you should move the ramp so walling at the nat is easier.
There are no central bases. While this isn't a huge problem, it can often lead to the map being split very easily. Sometimes a central base can help break that up and create some more interesting play. It's not a necessary fix, especially since the two frontmost expansions for each half are on totally opposite sides of the map.
Lastly, and by far the most nit-picky: Some people get a psychological advantage when they feel they are attacking "down" the map. Because of that, reflectional symmetry 2p maps usually have a vertical line of reflection. I don't know if it really matters, or if you really care enough to change it, but maybe something to think about in the future? If you really want to fix it (and don't feel pressured to) then you can just highlight all the terrain and make sure the bounds are big enough and then just go to edit>rotate>90degrees. But then you'd also have to recreate all the mineral lines and that's not fun... so don't feel pressured to do this.

Anyways, I have a few ideas about the map more specifically so I made a drawing (debrief below)!
+ Show Spoiler +

First of all, I drew my suggestion for how to fix the main ramp.
Second, for the third, I think it might be fun to have another ramp perpendicular to this one where the edges just barely touch and then put one of the larger rocks across both of the ramps. I don't know how it would affect things really, but it's fun and also makes taking the fourth a bit easier, which can be a good or bad thing.
Third, I highlighted in red an asymmetrical spot (center) and a glitched ramp spot (left) that are easy fixes you can do, although making the center perfectly symmetrical isn't really all that important.
Lastly, I drew in two possible central expansion spots. The right one would make the right side expansions more crucial, and the left side one would require some amount of space and would be easily harassed and would require you to probably remove or shrink some of the little holes in the center of the map. Personally I prefer the right side expansion but if you want to deviate from the standard you could do the left side one. Or both. Or you could flip the left side expansion. Really up to you.

Again, overall, a good map. Can't wait to see what you come up with next.

BlueBoxSC

United States582 Posts

November 29 2011 05:52 GMT

Fourth/Fifth look very hard to hold as Z, but maybe that's just me. Lots of cliffs, interesting for Protoss, I guess. Cool map, looking forward to playing it, still. :D

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

November 29 2011 07:42 GMT

#10

For a second map this is alright. You're trying to follow the same concept as Haven's Lagoon, and I highly encourage you to expand from there and try a new concept.

Now, balance-wise, the immediate thing I noticed was the choke into the natural. It doesn't make sense. The natural is super safe with a choke like that where you might as well just run up into the mains.

fenix404

United States305 Posts

November 29 2011 09:09 GMT

#11

anyone see the skull? turn your head left.

XenoX101

Australia729 Posts

November 29 2011 09:14 GMT

#12

It's like a reverse Haven's Lagoon, pretty cool

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

November 29 2011 13:53 GMT

#13

Oh I forgot the main ramp. As others said that has to be changed. You can neither wall in from the ramp to the nat nexus/OC/hatch, nor can you wall the nat choke, cos the ramp is sticking out in the open.
Something Blizzard likes to do but which is horrible in case you want a safe nat on your map (and in most cases you want that).

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

November 30 2011 01:25 GMT

#14

Updated terrain. Added two contested bases, rocks between 4ths, changed ramps and natural, shrunk mains, and brought 5ths a bit closer in hopes of giving zerg an easier time. If all goes well, I'll start working on those aesthetics....