EPT[M] (2) Oceanic Mountain - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Akinokaze
Australia326 Posts
| ||
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
On February 25 2012 13:13 Timetwister22 wrote: This map is way, way too chokey. Zerg won't stand a chance on this map. I really, really hate seeing this comment over and over in map critiquing. Zerg as a race has lots of viable options, one being mutas which could really care less about choke points, and the other is their strongest (OP) combo - broodlord infestor. If anything, a choke point hurts the opposing team more when trying to fight a BL/ Infestor combo because of the fungal growths. "Too chokey" can sometimes be applicable in map critiquing, but in the overall case of TL, it is used faaaar too often. I dont think this looks to bad and I like the uniqeness of the map. I would like to see this used in a map of the month tournament before making further judgement. | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
2) ok, brood/corruptor/infestor is strong in chokes, but there's no way the game will reach that point if there is nowhere the zerg can engage. Tl;dr go play the game before you post. | ||
Baumvieh
Germany67 Posts
On February 26 2012 17:49 midnight.tokyo wrote: After reading that a few times, I'm not sure anymore as to which ramp(s) you're referring there. - Natural is now near impossible for Protoss to take off anything short of a 3gate expand. Try and rearrange the main ramp or natural somehow so that a wall between the natural and ramp can be made with no more then three buildings. Please clarify using the markings in the following picture. My gut feeling tells me that in order to prevent the natural from being overran by lings, at least two walls must be build at 1 and 3 or 1 and 4. Where exactly should I narrow the space to allow those three-building walls? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yChGP.gif) | ||
|
Akinokaze
Australia326 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rw51Z.jpg) As you can see, it currently takes four buildings and two pylons (by my estimation) to wall off, and even then the outer pylon is weak to baneling busts. Edit: To clarify, either the natural has to be moved closer to the ramp or the ramp moved closer to the natural. | ||
|
StaY.qL
Germany34 Posts
edit: On February 27 2012 18:04 midnight.tokyo wrote: Attempting to wall off at any of the two points you labeled would most likely end in disaster for the Protoss. What I had in mind was the standard ramp-to-nexus three building wall off. As you can see, it currently takes four buildings and two pylons (by my estimation) to wall off, and even then the outer pylon is weak to baneling busts. good offer... but i think it's too hard for P to defend it when playing a FE style. especially the pylon on the right.. the distance between the choke and the natural should be closer. I like the the connection from Main to Natural on Cloud Kingdom | ||
|
Baumvieh
Germany67 Posts
Based on your suggestion and problem description, I fiddled about with the natural and ramp placement for a while and changed both, the natural(rearranged all resources) and the ramp and found a way of walling it in with just two buildings (and having room for two cannons, all in range of a single pylon). Aesthetics of the main plateau form suffered a bit though (I could fix that easily but not without narrowing the path from the natural to the third). I also checked and made sure that stalkers and immortals can still move up and down the ramp and around the nexus and between minerals and geysers. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y5uOP.png) | ||
|
StaY.qL
Germany34 Posts
imagine you want to save your probes by clicking on the highground, but you failed and they try to escape in your trap (2) ... outch^^ what do you think about that? (black=highground/grey=choke) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D9gVh.png) | ||
|
Akinokaze
Australia326 Posts
Edit: There is another thing I noticed actually, the drop zone behind the LoS blocker. It seems a bit unintuitive in its current location since reaching it requires you to fly over your opponent's natural. Edit Edit: Some pictures from liquipedia to go with my explanation above: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Walling#with_other_Buildings http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Wall-In_at_Natural (Antigua Shipyard and Metalopolis show examples of Ramp-Nexus walls) | ||
|
Baumvieh
Germany67 Posts
On February 27 2012 22:01 StaY.qL wrote: D'oh, good point. Can't change the high ground as you proposed though because the editor does not seem to let me shear off single grid fields from a cliff and those ramps seem to have a fixed length. I also want it to retain a form which allows Terran to wall off their main at the top of the ramp.Hm. there is no space between the choke and the gas? (1) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JgFXO.png) On February 27 2012 23:33 midnight.tokyo wrote:There is another thing I noticed actually, the drop zone behind the LoS blocker. It seems a bit unintuitive in its current location since reaching it requires you to fly over your opponent's natural. I'll see what I can do about that. I didn't think of it as a drop-zone but I see how that would be neat to have. My idea was to have this for cheesing in bunkers, barracks, pylons and whatnot in early game.  On February 27 2012 23:33 midnight.tokyo wrote:The natural could still do with a bit of work in this regard but I reckon your map is ready for play testing. I'll make a release in a couple of hours. First I have to make those changes to the other main/natural as well and then I want to fix some pathing problems I encountered while reaper/colossus testing yesterday night (some 2x2 cliff spires allow for a gazillion of reapers to clump up one them). | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
However, with the ramp as it is now, a protoss who's never played the map before can potentially put his first building in a position that blocks the nexus. Put the expansion a little farther away and it wont be a problem. | ||
|
StaY.qL
Germany34 Posts
I agree with Midnight.tokyo... would like to test it  | ||
|
Baumvieh
Germany67 Posts
I was busy making that release, so those last comments since my last post did not make it into 0.6 yet. So... where to find trustworthy individuals to publish in USA, Australia, etc.? (afk for now, back in a few hours) | ||
|
StaY.qL
Germany34 Posts
time for bed.. :/ | ||
|
Akinokaze
Australia326 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
| ||
|
Akinokaze
Australia326 Posts
It'll he a squeeze, but I think just enough room can be made between the main and third without reducing building area, the mains already small enough as it is . | ||
|
Baumvieh
Germany67 Posts
On February 28 2012 07:37 midnight.tokyo wrote: Thank you, I wrote you a PM.I'd be more then happy to publish it on SEA and NA, just gotta make sure I have the slots free (you're given 3 I believe so I should be fine) =) On my battle.net account I have a limit of 20 documents totalling 105 MB, so I guess they increased the limit if it was 3 at some point. On February 28 2012 07:48 TehTemplar wrote: Noted. I've also already found a couple of minor asymmetries in the curved defenders paths. Fixing that will have to go into 0.7.You can warp into your opponent's main, breaking PvP. Out of curiosity I have to ask though: How can SameRace vs SameRace ever be broken on a symmetrical map? If both players have exactly the same options, is it not auto-balanced by definition? | ||
|
StaY.qL
Germany34 Posts
On February 28 2012 10:59 Baumvieh wrote: Out of curiosity I have to ask though: How can SameRace vs SameRace ever be broken on a symmetrical map? If both players have exactly the same options, is it not auto-balanced by definition? Is it broken on a symetrical map? Don't think so. I played some games tonight on it.. 1 with Terran and 2 with Toss. good wall-off options, after work i'll try it with zerg. But the gold is nearly untakekable.. duno if it's even necessary 'cause there are 5 bases for both... and maps without gold being higher in demand than maps with gold expansion... at least in the higher leagues/pro scene But the first impression of the Map is really good | ||
|
Akinokaze
Australia326 Posts
On February 28 2012 10:59 Baumvieh wrote: Thank you, I wrote you a PM. On my battle.net account I have a limit of 20 documents totalling 105 MB, so I guess they increased the limit if it was 3 at some point. Noted. I've also already found a couple of minor asymmetries in the curved defenders paths. Fixing that will have to go into 0.7. Out of curiosity I have to ask though: How can SameRace vs SameRace ever be broken on a symmetrical map? If both players have exactly the same options, is it not auto-balanced by definition? Great, I'll get onto it once I get home. I'll add full credit to you in the description as well as a link to this thread for feedback. To answer your question, mirror matches on symmetric maps will always be balanced, but they can still be broken. A PvP on v0.6 will almost always turn into 4Gate vs 4Gate as no other strategy will be as strong. With one or both sides warping into the other's main this will often result in a base trade. | ||
| ||
