|
On May 14 2012 10:42 Syphon8 wrote:
Fuchsia: 3 of my suggestions would make these bases (TR and BL) harder to control in a horizontal split. This is to counterbalance that.
A horizontal split is highly unlikely and putting rocks there just makes a vertical split more troublesome. A vertical split results in a smaller line of defense and each player gets their own high ground. Thus, players will never go for a horizontal split unless they are intentionally trying to screw up the opponent, but that is unlikely, simply because expanding horizontally results in taking much harder bases.
|
On May 14 2012 12:18 RumbleBadger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 10:42 Syphon8 wrote:
Fuchsia: 3 of my suggestions would make these bases (TR and BL) harder to control in a horizontal split. This is to counterbalance that.
A horizontal split is highly unlikely and putting rocks there just makes a vertical split more troublesome. A vertical split results in a smaller line of defense and each player gets their own high ground. Thus, players will never go for a horizontal split unless they are intentionally trying to screw up the opponent, but that is unlikely, simply because expanding horizontally results in taking much harder bases.
Isn't the entire point to make both splits equally likely?
Both players get one highground in either split scenario.
|
@Syphon8 - Thanks for the suggestions. About Yellow, those are already pathable and should work as you suggest. Abotu the other suggestions ... I want to promote vertical split, not horizontal. As RumbleBadger says, there is more area to cover and there is CC risk that way.
@monitor - Ive got feedback that the high ground area is huge (in fact, that the map is "too big" and open. It might be one players viewpoint in ZvT, or it might be everyone but me, I don't know yet).
Looking into getting the map on NA atm
|
On May 15 2012 03:44 Meltage wrote:
@Syphon8 - Thanks for the suggestions. About Yellow, those are already pathable and should work as you suggest. Abotu the other suggestions ... I want to promote vertical split, not horizontal. As RumbleBadger says, there is more area to cover and there is CC risk that way.
@monitor - Ive got feedback that the high ground area is huge (in fact, that the map is "too big" and open. It might be one players viewpoint in ZvT, or it might be everyone but me, I don't know yet).
Looking into getting the map on NA atm
Cool cool,it looked like they were blocked by doodads.
|
Still look forward to play it on NA server! 
Did you use copy past for terrain design (playable surface) or you did it twice on both side?
At the first look some parts look different.
|
In spacial terms I think that this is a great map. Maybe a wider central passage would benefit the gameplay.
In terms of aesthetics it is also quite good. Personally I don't like the doodads you have chosen to the center and I think that you could use a little less grey sand.
Good job, i enjoyed your map a lot.
|
@PandaZerg - Still looking into it. For some reason (d3) it hasnt been possible to upload maps at all times, but we're on it.
I always copy-paste the terrain at some point in the making. The map is symetric gameplaywise. I made a few differences aesthetically between the symetrical halves though
@Warpish - Thanks. When you say you enjoyed, have you played on it?
|
On May 16 2012 16:13 Meltage wrote:
@Warpish - Thanks. When you say you enjoyed, have you played on it?
Yes I did. I played a match against the AI to check out the map.
|
the silver metal texture with the bright orange looks kinda bad but the rest is just as good as backwater gulch. cool map.
|
OP updated with latest version overview + analyzer images.
Map publishing on NA seems to be disabled atm. Anyone else having problems, or a fix?
Compare changes in this version:
http://imgur.com/a/pPI1G
|
OP updated again with new version.
Submitted to MotM.
Uploaded on NA.
Recent changes:
- playable map size changed from 154x136 to 158x124
- made the map less open in some places to make it easier for T to wall and defend.
- reduced the distance to vertical 4th and 5th by moving them closer.
- Reduced the size of the natural and re-layouted the main so that there is SLIGHTLY more air-space behind these bases.
|
With every base so easily harassed by air, I think that it might be getting a bit too Z favoured.
|
Wonderful tileset, although I'm very concerned about its rush distance. 124 seems a little low (I was concerned when I'd get around 127-130). Perhaps you could try creating some sort of barrier in the center of the path, like destructible rocks (similar to daybreak). This forces players to have to use the center high grounds, which could prove to have more potential to tactical approaches.
|
I still don't see it on NA servers 
I want to play it soo much!
|
On May 20 2012 07:50 PandaZerg wrote:I still don't see it on NA servers I want to play it soo much!
Working on it. Theres some error when publishing.
@IronMan - wouldnt rocks blocking the middle path make nat2nat too long? I think 125 is no different from 130, especially not when nat2nat regards the disance between CC positions and not nat chokes. I had 130ish in an earlier version where the nat was bigger, and havnt changed the nat chokes at all.
About the centre and high gorunds, I want the middle to be so chokey and generally unsafe that you wont use it past midgame.. much.
|
Its now confirmed the map is successfully published on NA
|
Good! Will test this out!
|
On May 23 2012 22:00 PandaZerg wrote:
Good! Will test this out!
Awesome, please give feedback if you can and feel welcome to share replays :D
Feedback based on testgames are so welcome.
|
The map is still not available on NA, nor as TWP nor as Silver Sands.
|
On May 26 2012 01:54 PandaZerg wrote:
The map is still not available on NA, nor as TWP nor as Silver Sands.
Hmm I think it's published private I'll investigate
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
