On January 09 2012 04:57 a176 wrote: So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
What? I see some similarities, but those all play out very differently. Totally different maps.
On January 09 2012 05:43 TibblesEvilCat wrote: i feel this map has a harder to get 3rd, due to pure distance making, airplay from 2 base from terran and protoss hard for the zerg to defend vs
On January 09 2012 04:57 a176 wrote: So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
I agree with you, all the maps seem so similar, except for aesthetics. I was going to make a comment that while this is a really pretty map, it is very familiar to what has been seen already... I guess I'm wanting a return of four spawn maps. Too much 2 spawn stuff.
On January 09 2012 04:57 a176 wrote: So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
That question doesn't sound serious at all. Of course we communicate, we've know each other for almost 2 years . I think you meant to complain again that the maps are too similar. Yes, they are quite similar and boring. However there aren't many options for expansion layouts and we're all trying to do some new stuff. Because we have 5 similar maps doesn't mean they're all going to be played.
I'm not a big fan of middle bases, give's toss and especially terran such a strong position on the map, where they can get ressources while parking their deathball in a strong position.
Overall a solid map but nothing really interesting.
Map updated (aesthetics). Played a test game on it, went well. Flanking is super important if you're going for a ground based army. Blink stalkers are also really strong on the map, and positioning is important. No Xel'Naga Towers and the long route to the third makes for a really interesting game. I need to experiment with going behind the centre bases more. Warp prisms are great if the Zerg doesn't go mutas.
On January 12 2012 21:47 Ragoo wrote: I'm not a big fan of middle bases, give's toss and especially terran such a strong position on the map, where they can get ressources while parking their deathball in a strong position.
Overall a solid map but nothing really interesting.
I played a bunch of games today and watched many more (between gm players). I can say it feels different than the other 2p maps out there. Positioning on the map is much more important. I think the center bases might be a better option for toss and terran taking a 4th. Overall the map played very very well. If you haven't tried it already I suggest you give it a go.
Couple thoughts of mine. How has the 3rd been playing out in your testing? It seems for PvZ grabbing a 3rd anywhere could be a little tough. Yes, there is only 1 double wide ramp into the third but there is still a pretty long ground distance to walk which has me worried. It seems that unless you completely wall off the 3rd at the top of the ramp you would have to set your army outside your natural which is a terrible spot since it's extremely open. Just thinking how it would be if those 3rds were rotated say 45 degrees clockwise.
I only see Terran ever taking the bases in the middle. Protoss won't be able to since it's extremely open as well as puts you in the middle of no where, you'd feel a lot safer expanding around the map. If you were going to take that forward base you'd have to park your entire army there. Terran could at least pfort it up and tank it up which is nice, although then the rush distance from the middle base to the natural seems like it might be a little too short. I don't see zerg taking that either because they don't want to expand toward their opponent either.
I don't see any LoS blockers? Is there a reason for that? Seems like you could create some neat features by adding some. Off the top of my head maybe on the lowground between the natural & third in that little passage between them, kinda like shakuras. Or maybe a line of them from the hole in the middle of the map to the little cliffs to the east and west of the hole. Possibly some up on the high ground in the 3rd to create a little area to proxy buildings / hide tech?
Overall I think it's a well thought out map & as Wnio said, I love that all the cliffs are wavy.
this has the exact same base layout as Cloud Kingdom, the only differnece are the cliffs and the asthetics, but overall i think it woudl still produce similar games
On January 26 2012 18:27 EcstatiC wrote: this has the exact same base layout as Cloud Kingdom, the only differnece are the cliffs and the asthetics, but overall i think it woudl still produce similar games
Well the expansion pattern as well as layout are really different, the only thing that is similar is base placement but progression through them is not comparable really. If you take the third on CK and this at the same place you're playing one map wrong (or at least very off-beat).
You could call this a split-pathing version of ck with different expansion progression at best if you like clasping at straws.
On January 26 2012 18:17 SidianTheBard wrote: Couple thoughts of mine. How has the 3rd been playing out in your testing? It seems for PvZ grabbing a 3rd anywhere could be a little tough. Yes, there is only 1 double wide ramp into the third but there is still a pretty long ground distance to walk which has me worried. It seems that unless you completely wall off the 3rd at the top of the ramp you would have to set your army outside your natural which is a terrible spot since it's extremely open. Just thinking how it would be if those 3rds were rotated say 45 degrees clockwise.
I only see Terran ever taking the bases in the middle. Protoss won't be able to since it's extremely open as well as puts you in the middle of no where, you'd feel a lot safer expanding around the map. If you were going to take that forward base you'd have to park your entire army there. Terran could at least pfort it up and tank it up which is nice, although then the rush distance from the middle base to the natural seems like it might be a little too short. I don't see zerg taking that either because they don't want to expand toward their opponent either.
I don't see any LoS blockers? Is there a reason for that? Seems like you could create some neat features by adding some. Off the top of my head maybe on the lowground between the natural & third in that little passage between them, kinda like shakuras. Or maybe a line of them from the hole in the middle of the map to the little cliffs to the east and west of the hole. Possibly some up on the high ground in the 3rd to create a little area to proxy buildings / hide tech?
Overall I think it's a well thought out map & as Wnio said, I love that all the cliffs are wavy.
Actually the third has never been a problem in testing. Most players are able to get up a third and holding works really well since it's a 2x ramp. The actual problem comes from taking a 4th with the corner expansions being a little too far for Terran and Toss. The zergs have prefered to expand towards the corner expansions due to their higher mobility.
LoS blockers are overkill on this map. The map already has low vision due to the lack of XWTs. Some of the feedback I've heard was it was hard to keep track of attacking armies as they moved out. The map requires a different approach to scouting (like bw). Putting ovies on the cliffs everywhere is essential for victory as well as using the occasional marine or probe to scout.
The lowground between the natural and the third doesn't really come up in real gameplay so I don't see the harm in doing so but it seems to be making the map more complicated than it should be for no reason.
I'll upload some replays to the original post tonight.
I'm liking ulaan grunge + grass textures with the additional decorating.
So Gwen, I'm also working on a map with no towers, and I want to ask you if you feel you have to make special dispensation for that. How did it work out here? Does it favour one race over another? Depending on the builds maybe? Should SC2 maps always try to have towers, because the game is better with them, or is it just an option and we haven't well explored the choice not to use them? I'm looking for a general view on the issue to help me understand my own map better, and also a more specific answer about what it means on Brineclaw. I'm going to go watch replays now to see how the players position their armies and if they are scouting more actively to compensate for lack of towers. (This is the biggest thing I've noticed.)
EPT
. I think you meant to complain again that the maps are too similar. Yes, they are quite similar and boring. However there aren't many options for expansion layouts and we're all trying to do some new stuff. Because we have 5 similar maps doesn't mean they're all going to be played.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fY2MZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oo569.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n3X1a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aeQCq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wuQuv.jpg)
