[M] (2) Emerald Steel

On March 12 2012 02:57 algue wrote:
3th and 4th expo have a very weird placement :O

On March 13 2012 00:08 blizzfreak wrote:Are the main bases siegeable from the cliffs behind it? (The ones right between the high ground and the double expo area)

On March 13 2012 00:08 blizzfreak wrote:Are the cliffs (the extended strips from the main high ground) behind the top left and bottom right expansions siegeable or have unit-pathing? (can you put units up there?)

On March 13 2012 00:08 blizzfreak wrote:The mutalisk harass from the main to any other base could be extremely good, or any other air harass, due to the long distances from the mineral line in the main to your natural and 3rd,4th bases, and how exposed it is.

On March 13 2012 00:08 blizzfreak wrote:The ramp from the natural seems oddly placed, and does not seem like Forge Fast Expand is too viable unless you make the wall further away.

On March 13 2012 00:08 blizzfreak wrote:The 3rd and 4th bases might be better if there was some sort of gap or pathing block, water, etc between them. They feel very open, as do the 5th and 6th bases.

On March 13 2012 01:34 TheFish7 wrote:
that mockup looks super awesome!
I'm going to have to echo everyone else who is saying the 4th and 6th look easy to take. shouldn't be too tough to use some of that dead space in the corners to make a more interesting layout for those bases though.

On March 13 2012 02:15 TheFish7 wrote:
I definately like the change.
One thin I'm worried about he 5th base is 2 levels higher than the ground? I've never seen a ramp go up two levels like that, so I'm wondering if units will be able to see up the ramp, and if that might cause some issues with parking seige units at the top

On March 14 2012 02:35 Akinokaze wrote:


Without air spotters, a unit would have to go 3/4 up the ramp before seeing the top, could be a potential issue I agree. I'm not actually sure why the 5th base needs to raised at all actually, any particular reasoning behind this?

On March 14 2012 02:35 Akinokaze wrote:
The third base still seems too vulnerable, especially in XvZ where taking a relatively quick third (~10min) will be next to impossible. This could result in some stale match ups where X is forced to build up a sizable army on two base while Z is free to take the map. With control of the watch tower/vision of the two ramps coming in, an army could feasibly hold the third indefinitely, but this creates an opening for a muta attack or doom drop into the rather conveniently placed main.

On March 14 2012 02:35 Akinokaze wrote:
Overall, the maps feels a bit larger than necessary and is a bit restrictive in what you can do. In its current state, the map favors either heavy turtling or harass based strategies (particularly by air), with little room in between.

On March 14 2012 02:35 Akinokaze wrote:
Edit: The area in between the 5th and 6th outer bases currently serve no use at all (except as a staging area for doom drops maybe...or proxies). While a lot of maps have areas that simply aren't traversed in most games, I'm of the belief that allowing the player to incorporate the entire map into their strategy results in more diverse and entertaining games

On March 14 2012 11:44 Chargelot wrote:
Is this a giant pylon turned 45 degrees clockwise? Kinda looks like one if you think about it.

On March 14 2012 21:50 Baumvieh wrote:
To separate the fifth from the sixth and to give more interesting paths to take from the main highground which spans across the center of the map. I'm thinking about raising the sixth as well but only by one cliff level and connecting it to the fifth to eliminate the high ramp (but actually I think that a high ramp like that could be interesting).

On March 14 2012 21:50 Baumvieh wrote:
I'll see what I can do about that though I can already hear the 'too chokey' comments ringing through my head if I go ahead and make the third more easy to defend. I also think that a player could easily opt' to take the fourth as the third because that's easier to defend (or even the fifth, which would be very easy to defend if it stays on the high ground with the big ramp).

On March 14 2012 21:50 Baumvieh wrote:
I don't think that's true at all, because there are many different paths which can be chosen to move across and about between all bases from third upwards (it's true though that the main and natural support turtleing a bit but that's the case on many other maps as well so it can't be too bad for the overall balance, I hope).

On March 14 2012 21:50 Baumvieh wrote:
Some areas of the map which appear empty and pointless right now will later be occupied with decorative terrain and doodads.

On March 13 2012 04:57 blizzfreak wrote:If you are planning on updating the middle, maybe an attack path leading from the 6th base low ground to the 3rd bases. I'm just thinking in terms of Zerg run-bys and the ability to zone well with the current watchtower placement. It could be difficult to get counter-attacks off this way.

Keep up the good work! I'm interested to see how you do the doodads because the mock up looks beautiful!

On March 19 2012 21:40 Akinokaze wrote:Hm, I like your alternative The side ramp being just out of tower range is an excellent change, I don't believe sneaking by was possible in 2.0c (correct me if I'm wrong). The tower change for the attacker is a little bit debatable as you've now opened up a new path into the third, but I think some testing is needed before any changes are made.

On March 22 2012 08:52 madhyene wrote:I don't know if what i see is updated or not, but i think that the third expansion is just terrible. Imagine tanks siege up in range of your natural's exit, or a protoss comes in and forcefields the ramp.

On March 22 2012 08:52 madhyene wrote:Also, i don't know if you access the main from the high grounds behind the main, but if you can, reapers are going to be imba on this map. Keep in mind this is from a zerg's point of view.

On March 22 2012 10:26 iTzSnypah wrote:This map just feels too large with a few key chokes. I feel that the 3rd is situated in the main attack path. This in itself is not bad, however the area around the 3rd is vast, proving to be a good staging ground for a light contain. I would think that placing the 3rd on high ground would make it more defendable.

red = highground bounds
blue = ramps
greyish-blue = area that would have to be added to keep the area from being too much of a choke

On March 22 2012 10:26 iTzSnypah wrote:How do you make it so organic cliffs can be right next to manmade cliffs? whenever I try to do that it just pushes the manmade cliffs away? btw ima newb at the editor lol

On March 22 2012 22:58 Baumvieh wrote:
I think the extra path won't be too much of a problem because it is very narrow and due to the searchlight doodads, bigger units can't take that new path but yes, test-games will have to show whether it's ok.

On March 22 2012 22:58 Baumvieh wrote:
How are those two scenarios a problem specific to this map? I think that well placed forcefields and siegetanks will always be a problem for zerg. The tanks though could be taken out with some mutalisks.
I really don't know though, should map design be tailored specifically to disallow valid in-game tactics (like containment)? Is that really impossible to counter here?

On March 22 2012 22:58 Baumvieh wrote:

Thanks for that suggestion and for taking the time to illustrate it (diagrams and drawings always help ). I'm currently in the middle of decorating and texturing though, so I won't immediately go on to make any terrain changes at this point.

Also, if I placed the third on high ground, that would open a cliff walk path right into the main, so the high ground for the third would have to be offset a bit, to keep a small gap between that and the main high ground... hm... I'll think about that some more; it could probably work with that gap if the main would be made a bit smaller.

But wouldn't a third on high ground be even easier to deny by the enemy in this case?
I'd rather keep it on low ground and improve the defense possibilities by other means if it's really still too hard to hold.

On March 24 2012 20:26 derfium wrote:
This map looks very cool but i think you have not any chance go get up the choke to natural if tanks stay on the high-ground of first.

On April 01 2012 15:06 Akinokaze wrote:
Would be glad to, just send me a PM

I actually have a map that I've been working on for over a year that I'm still not happy with lol. I work on it for a day or two every couple of months or so before getting discouraged by my lack or artistic skills

On April 03 2012 03:37 XenoX101 wrote:
This would be okay without destructible rocks, in general though I feel it is too cramped and restrictive of the flow of gameplay. I also can't think of any way this map would benefit zerg while I can think of many ways that Protoss or Terran could abuse the geography. I would probably suggest removing the two 'wells' where all the ramps converge downward and repositioning the watch towers so they are a bit less intrusive/provide more open space. Aesthetics are great, solid colour scheme and very unique theme with the lavender and green hues.

On April 03 2012 05:47 Adonminus wrote:
Beautiful work, well done.

About FFE, I notice that you can do a wall adjacent to nexus safer to early ling runbys and a wall closer to ramp safer against mid game attacks, just like in antiga shipyard.

The positions of the 3rd and 4th encourage macro play, while still have multiple attack path or wide entrances so that the enemy could punish too greedy play.

The center design feels a bit unfortable for engagements with the vision blocks and chocky entrances. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but I think it can disencourage those a-move battles in the middle, and lead to fights in more open areas like near the 4th.

On April 03 2012 21:05 Baumvieh wrote:
Thank you for your comment. I will have to think about those issues you mentioned. I don't know if it's really too cramped though, I specifically kept all ramps past the natural pretty wide and there is a lot of open space on the map (it might not look like it on the overview but oddly enough, in-game everything feels very open and huge) so Zerg can work their creep spread magic to get a speed advantage almost everywhere. Any Zerg players want to comment on that (try to be unbiased) or think of some good zerg strategies on this map?

On April 03 2012 21:05 Baumvieh wrote:
So, anyone else played the map yet? I'd really like to see/publish the replays here.

Meanwhile, I have two replays for anyone bored enough to watch (me vs VeryHard AI Protoss and me vs Mojo Zerg). Feel free to comment on the map and on my play too as I'm only Bronze and I always seek to improve:
Emerald Steel v0.2 - Baumvieh(T) v AI VeryHard(P)
Emerald Steel v0.2 - Baumvieh(T) v Mojo(Z)

Also, if you would like to play against me(on EU), I usually hang out in #sc2maps and #taketv on quakenet IRC.

On April 04 2012 00:56 Veloh15 wrote:
I would suggest putting the 3rd away from the natural. That way the natural can be attacked without walking past the 3rd. Making only 1 entrance to a base makes for bad gameplay. The 3rd should be away from opponent imho and safe to take, but it should have 2 attack paths leading to it. Depending on how defensible the 3rd is, and how easy the 4th is. The answer is not always easy. Antiga has a very hard 4th. And is still and excellent map. Also I think that there is too much empty space and the map needs to swell up a little. Looks great keep up the good work!