|
|
|
Can you comment on your decision for the paths behind the 4ths?
|
United States209 Posts
On April 10 2012 06:30 iGrok wrote:
Can you comment on your decision for the paths behind the 4ths?
It was a decision made based on keeping a consistant level of technicality. There was a lot of space leftover there post-bulldozing, so I wanted to keep it a little interesting. I like it as an alternative attack route to the third as well as a place to utilize blink/tanks/infestors to assault the fourth. I could have actually made the fourth even lower than the current low-ground and made the path similar to the xel'naga caverns path, but I decided to go with this version instead.
Ultimately the path doesn't have a huge impact on the play of the map, but there are certainly times when it would be utilized for various sneak attacks.
Edit: Also it reminds me a bit of what was previously back there, a backdoor.
|
I love this map! Especially the location of the Xel'naga Towers, how they are accessible from both sections of high ground, but also block pathing.
I really liked some of the key concepts on Crossfire, that are still here in this map. The natural is still vulnerable to air harassment, and there are still two middle expansions. Overall, the map is still very technical like the original was. You've also added things that I think improve the map immensely. The low ground path behind the fourth is a really nice touch.
I don't see many line of sight blockers. Is there a specific reason why they were not used that people should know about?
I would absolutely love to see this in future events. It definitely deserves a spot in any map pool in my opinion!
|
It certainly LOOKS better than Crossfire (not aesthetically atm). The slightly larger chokes all around should definitely help deal with mobility issues.
What you should do with this map is touch up the aesthetics as much as possible along with fixing any glaring imbalance issues and submit it to the MotM April. Given it's layout is very similar to Crossfire there's a decent chance you'd get some sort of response good or bad.
|
United States209 Posts
Word up Antares, thank you. I tried to find places to use Los blockers, but ultimately nothing felt like a strong choice.
On April 10 2012 10:35 lost_artz wrote:
It certainly LOOKS better than Crossfire (not aesthetically atm). The slightly larger chokes all around should definitely help deal with mobility issues.
What you should do with this map is touch up the aesthetics as much as possible along with fixing any glaring imbalance issues and submit it to the MotM April. Given it's layout is very similar to Crossfire there's a decent chance you'd get some sort of response good or bad.
I'd be curious as to what you believe needs to be touched up aesthetically, i'm fairly happy with how the map looks and the response to the aesthetics seems to be overwhelming positive, but yes I intend to submit this map to motm so I can beat out Archvile this time. 
|
I'm with artz. Its so grey! Maybe if the fog was a different color... just something to break up the monotony would be nice.
|
If Crossfire and Could Kingdom had a child this map will be it...
Looks amazing would be awesome to see it in tournaments.
|
On April 10 2012 11:15 iGrok wrote:
I'm with artz. Its so grey! Maybe if the fog was a different color... just something to break up the monotony would be nice.
I am in agreement too. The details in the aesthetics are super awesome but... it is missing something. It is really all one dark texture- the dirt/rocks don't seperate that well from the man-made textures aside from the decals imo. I think you could change some of the textures to make it more bright and distinctive. Maybe a silver highground texture and some different organic styles?
|
To comment on the aesthetics, even in the detail shots the map looks extraordinarily black and white/grey with a hint of green sticking out from time to time. I definitely agree that a wider color scheme would help a lot here.
The layout looks sick as hell, though
|
I would dig some of that purple shakuras rocky texture here... Still, I'd have to see it on stream or something to know if it was too boring as-is.
Layout-wise, it seems great. This design is so cool, I really hated to see it disappear with crossfire. Your version is very nice. It seems like the issues with Crossfire have been fixed, although I miss the backdoor.
|
Can you pull the mineral line at the 4th one square up and over to make more room behind the minerals? I know you want shooting from below, but it's a ridiculous marine drop bunker the way you have it now. Alternatively you can move the mineral patches around to make more holes for melee units to chase out drops.
Other than that this looks sexy as hell.
|
United States209 Posts
Some changes en route, stay tuned.
|
make it more colourful and it will be amazing
|
On April 10 2012 10:55 wrl wrote:Word up Antares, thank you. I tried to find places to use Los blockers, but ultimately nothing felt like a strong choice. Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 10:35 lost_artz wrote:
It certainly LOOKS better than Crossfire (not aesthetically atm). The slightly larger chokes all around should definitely help deal with mobility issues.
What you should do with this map is touch up the aesthetics as much as possible along with fixing any glaring imbalance issues and submit it to the MotM April. Given it's layout is very similar to Crossfire there's a decent chance you'd get some sort of response good or bad. I'd be curious as to what you believe needs to be touched up aesthetically, i'm fairly happy with how the map looks and the response to the aesthetics seems to be overwhelming positive, but yes I intend to submit this map to motm so I can beat out Archvile this time.
I think monitor summed it up nicely + Show Spoiler + On April 10 2012 11:54 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 11:15 iGrok wrote:
I'm with artz. Its so grey! Maybe if the fog was a different color... just something to break up the monotony would be nice. I am in agreement too. The details in the aesthetics are super awesome but... it is missing something. It is really all one dark texture- the dirt/rocks don't seperate that well from the man-made textures aside from the decals imo. I think you could change some of the textures to make it more bright and distinctive. Maybe a silver highground texture and some different organic styles?
I personally was more so touching on the doodad side of things. Something that could work very well would be adding some of the crystal doodads and re-coloring them to match the green of the protoss doodads that are lining the high-ground areas (if possible) since the green is such a dominate color in this map.
|
I like it! Could use some more details as far as aesthetics, but I like crossfire and I like the similarities here as well. Nice job.
|
wrl, I think it looks brilliant! The detail shots add depth and feeling to the map. I don't know much about map making but it looks like a fun map to play on, especially as Protoss: it seems suited to Protoss. I also love the green lines, very futuristic and clean cut. I hope we can get that map over in Europe too. Thank you!
|
I think a decent first step to livening up the aesthetic would be replacing the castanar tiles with the avernus ones, as they are slightly brighter. There are probably other things you can do, but I don't have it to open in the editor, so I can't say for sure. It looks good, very nicely detailed, but is a bit monotone. Who knows, maybe you're already on it!
|
|
|
Looks nice. ^^
I like the low 4th because it plays up control of the large platform in front of it.
|
Hmmm. I liked the high ground fourth better for a couple reasons:
First the fourth is pretty hard to take because the outside choke is so far from any of the other bases. Having it on a high ground would help promote the use of static defense and more tactical defense play.
Now, to effectively defend the fourth, you have to have control of the high ground in front of it and the area the fifth base is in. Meaning that you have to have the resources to defend essentially five bases worth of area, but you are only taking your fourth.
Also, the fourth is now very cramped and small. It would be hard to fit in effective static defense and even just the base is cramped. Toss and Terran could easily take out that expansion versus a zerg because 1) the cramped pathing helps them because the zerg can't get a surround as well and 2) they have the path in the back to heavily harass that base which can draw troops away from the actual fight for the base.
Anyway, I really like the aesthetic touches you've added and the map looks great! Other than the fourth, the only thing I would personally change is the crevasse in front of the third. I'd rather it be a little shorter (push it away from the third) so that there is a bigger choke for the defender to move through. Ideally the attacker would have a smaller choke to move through than the defender imo. Though it looks like you're already doing this from the pictures above in the preview. If so, I concur!
Diggin' the map. Keep going. =D
|
The map itself looks good, way better than Crossfire just by looking at it. Hope the improvements go well and it gets in some small tourneys! Submit it to Map Of The Month, maybe.
|
I just thought of this, but there was this map with a backdoor concept where the third's minerals blocked the entrance of the ramp. Would that work better on this map? I was just thinking about it when I recalled that Crossfire had a backdoor.\
What are your thoughts on a concept like that being used?
|
United States209 Posts
Map updated! Please view the OP for details!
On April 11 2012 06:37 RumbleBadger wrote:
Hmmm. I liked the high ground fourth better for a couple reasons:
First the fourth is pretty hard to take because the outside choke is so far from any of the other bases. Having it on a high ground would help promote the use of static defense and more tactical defense play.
Now, to effectively defend the fourth, you have to have control of the high ground in front of it and the area the fifth base is in. Meaning that you have to have the resources to defend essentially five bases worth of area, but you are only taking your fourth.
Also, the fourth is now very cramped and small. It would be hard to fit in effective static defense and even just the base is cramped. Toss and Terran could easily take out that expansion versus a zerg because 1) the cramped pathing helps them because the zerg can't get a surround as well and 2) they have the path in the back to heavily harass that base which can draw troops away from the actual fight for the base.
Anyway, I really like the aesthetic touches you've added and the map looks great! Other than the fourth, the only thing I would personally change is the crevasse in front of the third. I'd rather it be a little shorter (push it away from the third) so that there is a bigger choke for the defender to move through. Ideally the attacker would have a smaller choke to move through than the defender imo. Though it looks like you're already doing this from the pictures above in the preview. If so, I concur!
Diggin' the map. Keep going. =D
Some great points in here. Overall I think I am happy with the third and fourth. The third's choked defender's entrance is similar to entombed valley or cloud kingdom, but a bit easier to split your forces on either side of the choke than either of those two maps.
The fourth will be hard to defend, map awareness will be key and taking advantage of splash damage to break up balls in the chokes will be important for zerg. Zerg's Muta or Infestor control will be the key to their victory, mass 13m roaches are not going to win you too many games.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Wow this looks really really nice!!!
|
Great improvement over the bullshit that is Crossfire! Already one of my favorites for the next map of the month.
|
On April 13 2012 01:14 wrl wrote: mass 13m roaches are not going to win you too many games.
It's near 11 minutes now 
|
United States209 Posts
Ragoo yelled at me for not including analyzer pics, so they are there at the bottom. What purpose they serve, I don't know.
|
i love this map, show us where we can vote for it or something to see if we can get it used somewhere.
|
Kinda reminds me of crossfire, in terms of layout.
|
On April 17 2012 11:28 TheMajiC wrote:
Kinda reminds me of crossfire, in terms of layout.
I quote the OP : " TPW Peaks of Alamar, a Peaks of Baekdu/Crossfire remake by wrl."
|
Hmmm... Looking at this again, it feels like the ramp leading down from the platform outside the natural towards the center area is too wide. It's equally wide on both sides. I think one of the coolest setups on Crossfire was how it had that small ramp there where you could start defending things before they get back to your natural.
I don't remember how wide the ramp was on Peaks of Baekdu, but generally, considering the lack of highground advantage in SC2, I'd say it should be small here anyway to make that a strong defensive point.
Right now it sort of feels like a player on three bases would position their army on the lowground between the nat and third. I think it would be really cool if they wanted to position on the highground.
Kinda going with this, although not entirely related, it seems like it might be a bit hard to defend the third, because it seems really easy to push in through that wide choke from the outside, and difficult to swing in from along the edge of the main as the defender. It sort of feels like that entire crack thing in that area is a little too close to the main, and it might be better if it were moved just a bit over. Of course if your trying to encourage the defender to position his army in a more forward position to cut off any attacks to that base, as well as begin securing a fourth (a bit like Korhal in this way, how you want to control the forward highground to secure the third and then you get an easy fourth,) then it's probably alright. If you can hold the watchtower then you can control both highgrounds and go up all the way to five bases without too much worry of being out of position for a direct attack.
I generally liked the small ramps in Crossfire so I don't really approve of removing them. Feels more deathball-friendly now. It's not a bad map by any means, but I think you "fixed" some things which actually made Crossfire great, at least for me. It's better than Crossfire overall, though, for sure, so I'd label this as a success.
|
United States209 Posts
Glad everyone liked it. I'll be really busy over the next couple months, but my goal it to go back and reanlyze Peaks of Alamar and Odin and likely release updated versions.
Thanks for the support!
|
Would be nice to try it out once it goes live at EU
|
The WRL decal on the northwest and southeast highgrounds remind me of the razer logo. Awesome map and congrats on the bronze! Well-deserved award imo
|
Canada1637 Posts
I absolutely love this map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P8VyM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L8JVi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/VKQ9i.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/TtotA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Lxlav.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nguFq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/pGp82.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/90J3L.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zK5IG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/NdhWU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/7YDwH.jpg)
