EPT[M] (2) Sacred - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
sCnDiamond
Germany340 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
On January 03 2012 00:54 midnight.tokyo wrote: The layout is simply amazing. Just to confirm, are the bridge sections overlooking the 3rds pathable? Yes, they are. I'm thinking about making them low ground, so that they are still dropzones, but easier to defend against (you dont need overlord vision). On January 03 2012 00:58 IronManSC wrote: The only potential problem I see is that the attacker always has to push onto high ground to do some damage, including the natural... and the entrance to the natural looks very easy to turtle on with siege tanks. Other than that, it's a wonderful map. I know. Do you htink I shoudl make some ramps wider, or open a path into the low ground third via the middle low ground? On January 03 2012 01:02 spinnaker wrote: I think you need to add some subtle accents in terms of color to your map. At the moment it's pretty much grey in grey / brown in brown. I think it can add a lot of the looks of your map. You have a point. Im adding grass and still adding doodads, but I also wants to keep the style clean. | ||
|
PiLoKo
Mexico144 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
On January 03 2012 02:51 PiLoKo wrote: This map looks freeking amazing, Ill play on it a lil later for sure Thanks. Do you play on EU? Its not on NA atm, or SA for that matter. If the map become popular, you're likely to see it on NA and KR in the near future. | ||
|
Todie
Sweden46 Posts
| ||
InsidiA
Canada1169 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
- redesigned the dropzone behind the thrid, so that only the part closest (within roaches range, once you've got vision) is on higher ground. - made the 6 and 12 oclock ramps leading to the 4th and 5th quadroupple from tripple-sized. - finished most of the aesthethics (using below 300 doodads, which I think is an achievement  )- added a bunch of detail images to the OP. Imgur album http://imgur.com/a/autvd#2 A closer look at the dropzone by the third: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ODPMk.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SYBKH.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RrIuw.jpg) | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
- Map size reshaped to 140x130 playable from 142x134 playable. The reason was to reduce air space (see below). - Added to "Features" in OP: Balanced air vulnerability of the main, nat and third. Since the mineral line of the main is somewhat vulnerable to air harrass, I didn't want the airspace between nat and third to be too powerfull. For air to reach the dropzone, or the free air space, they need to pass over pathable terrain. The main and thrid have vulnerable sides, but strong air harrass of the nat can be prevented, is the idea. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P1n8H.jpg) Changing to this less vulnerable main: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1lGmm.jpg) | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
I recieved some critique from Barrin (in relation to the motm winter contest). Sacred This was actually one of my top 10 at first. In its current form its actually majorly flawed, but with some tweaks it could be much better. First, the middle is just too small; this is actually the part that I liked most at first, but upon further inspection it's just too restricting. I think the entrance close to the main of the bases at top right and bottom left corner should be low ground instead of high ground. I think the suggestion to make some of the area aroudn the middle low ground is a good suggestion, asuming the middle is too small. But I dont get in what sense it's too small. If the surrounding high grounds are too powerfull, or if its just about the middle choke. In that sense, maybe smaller mains would achieve that - they could be 2 CCs smaller I think, without loosing too much space, I think. What do you think? | ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
On January 24 2012 08:16 Meltage wrote: I recieved some critique from Barrin (in relation to the motm winter contest). I think the suggestion to make some of the area aroudn the middle low ground is a good suggestion, asuming the middle is too small. But I dont get in what sense it's too small. If the surrounding high grounds are too powerfull, or if its just about the middle choke. In that sense, maybe smaller mains would achieve that - they could be 2 CCs smaller I think, without loosing too much space, I think. What do you think? I think the center is too small in that there isn't really much of a center at all. The layout seems to be designed around the bases, as in the base layout is very refine and such, but the center is just kinda there. There isn't really much strategic positioning or movement to be found in the center, which I believe is the flaw Barrin is referring to. Also, the high grounds on the outside are powerful because a player can't maneuver around them in any way. They go through the center, and then tanks or colossi up on the high ground and heavily defended just pound at them. Since the center doesn't let a player get any sort of advantage through positioning, breaking a turtle becomes a lost cause (which really hurts zerg especially). Hope that makes sense. Also I really like this map, just so you know. I see what Barrin is getting at (I think) but I really like the base layout and the aesthetics are earthgasmic. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
Also, the high grounds on the outside are powerful because a player can't maneuver around them in any way. They go through the center, and then tanks or colossi up on the high ground and heavily defended just pound at them. Since the center doesn't let a player get any sort of advantage through positioning, breaking a turtle becomes a lost cause (which really hurts zerg especially). I read you, but the higher groduns are splitted, so you have to split your army to defend both nat and 4/5th, why the defender is forced to move into the low ground at some point. But I do think I could open the middle low ground more by making the main slightly smaller and extending the lowground towards the 5ths. @WniO - two chokepoints? no thanks... You're also talking about the middle? Theres three, but ofc the narrow one isnt viable for long into the game. I'll look into the aesthetic flaw you remarked on. | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
This is from Samro55am and IronManSC while discussing the small centre and the possible static flow it causes (an issue Barrin brought up). Analysis: Frontlines + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ogLy2.jpg) The frontlines at different stages in the game. An analysis of the current layout. It's appearent here that you don't need to move your army much to defend, given that you spot an attacking army in time. The orange dot is the tower which comes into play after 3 bases. Analysis: Red Attacks Blue + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8tTfQ.jpg) Purple circle is the area where armies are most likely to clash. If you keep your army on the low ground (red and blue circle ) and scout using the tower on your half of the map, you barely have to move your army to defend, is the analysis. Suggestion 1: Vulnerable 5th + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4F1qc.jpg) Red lines are organic cliffs, black are manmade cliffs in the image. This suggestion makes the CCW 5th harder to defend, and adds some space to the centre. The flow between CCW 4tha nd 5th is affected much. Imagine this version without the tower. Suggestion 2: Kill the High Ground Advantage + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UXYhB.jpg) The red thick line by the CCW 4th is a ramp, an opening. The red lines and green arrows next to it is a high ground bridge, I think. Waht this basically does, is providing more space to the low ground centre for armies to position (less static army movement and positioning). It alsomakes the 5th harder to defend, since you can no longer flank the enemy by the high ground. Tower placement wasn't considred in this suggestion. Teh grey blob is supposed to be low ground, but not as totally open as the image suggests. Sam pointed out how the second suggestion seems to be the beter solution, but also how it kills the charicaristics of the map, and I agree. It would become more typical, but perhaps for the best reason. Thoughts? Edit: lol I was so tired when posting this I got all the images wrong. Should be right now. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10172 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
EDIT: Actually, you got all the pics swapped lol | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
imo, you just need more space, specifically vertically. This would open the constricted passages and make it harder to static bully, just by virtue of having wider chokes and more width to cover. As others have said it's too easy to control your side with a central army. Stretching the north/south dimension would immediately reduce this like 50% at least because it'd be much more of a stretch to get the tower, and being right in the middle of the routes would defend none of them effectively. Let me give an example of problem situation. TvZ terran does a push off 2base (pretty standard fare) and flies out his CC to the center base, creating PF behind push. Regardless of the outcome of the push, terran can just camp his reinforcements at his new base and be safe. The tower is easy to maintain because everything you care about is right there, the alternate ramp, your base, presence in the middle, etc. The real problem is that the normal 3rd and 4th are like free bases at that point (because of the tower). One good thing is that the main has really good air / drop vulnerability which begins to forgive the strength of center defense. Now imagine same thing except there is 8 squares more of vertical dimension in the center. So 4 above and 4 below the narrow part. Terran has a nice foothold but it's much scarier. You can't keep close hand on your tower without committing, making your new base vulnerable. You begin to stretch too thin if you want to cover every angle of your new base, and you can't catch wide flanks without the tower. Thus instead of having a good position no matter the result of the 2base push, you can't use that maneuver as a crutch to both pave the way for the lategame and maintain dangerous launchpad for the next attack on zerg. However just taking up presence in the center and establishing your 3rd there while maintaining large/secure army (growing tank count) is a well rewarded passive option that isn't invulnerable. I hope this is helpful and not just verbose story-time. >< | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
1. compact centre - solution: create more space. this can be done as shown in image suggestion 1 with main and nat reworked a bit to move half base a bit to the outside. similar to EatThePath ideas. 2. the area of control does not change much with taking more bases - solution. there is none, this is how the base works. the towers could be deleted to make it less an issue and fifth could be made harder to defend by killing the direct connection to fourth ( image suggestion 1) here is a better image to describe the problem. hopefuly easier to understand than the two images from last night: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/itut1.jpg) both problems add to each other. only by making the centre bigger you might not find the perfect solution. we should try without towers, without fourth into fifth ramp for defending forces. Ironman's idea is really nice, but it changes the map's characteristics. | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
@Samro - Thanks for clarifying. Well, its obvious enough. BUT I'm not totally convinced this can't just be a map with the possible flaws of a tight middle and strong tower, less vulnerable bases beacuse of it, but vulnerability to air. You could say those are flaws, but you could also say they're characteristics for this map. But I will explore another version and go in the direction of what has been suggested. Also, what would happen to this version, if I just removed the towers? Or maybe something like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UTps7.jpg) Changes: * main and forward thirds pushed back. * tower moved away from the primary attack path. * ramp up to fourth moved due to new tower position. Pros and Cons: + the wider paths through middle are now farther form one another. + tower no longer spotting the attack path into 5th and 4th. + tower spots the top of the ramp into the highground by the nat, helps breaking strong T siege there. - tower spots the narrow path through centre, while in past version of the map, it was a blind spot. + because of it, towers are more useful early game. + tower spots the unpathable high ground outside the natural third (anti overlord/broodlord/raven) | ||
| ||
