0,8 - Fixed some pathing issues were 3 small units could be dropped upon the ovie-scout-pods in natural and third. - Added more doodads (rocks, some cactus) to clearly indicate what small areas are pathable and not. The only intended drop zones (small pathable areas) are those shown in detail images (see above) where you can drop tanks and similar. - There were also small pockets were small units could be dropped between the south main and the map borders. They are no longer pathable (this is not an issue in the official GSTL version). 0,7 - Extended playble size from 158x128 to 158x124, so there's is SLIGHTLY more airspace behind main nat and CW third. - Publiced for HotS.
Published on EU (WoL, version 0,7) and HoTS Beta (version 0,8) as GSL TPW Silver Sands On NA (WoL) as TPW Silver Sands (version 0,6)
Well this is pretty sweet. I like the texturing and the position of the watchtowers with the LOS blockers on the outskirts of their vision. Lots of nifty little places to drop too. I noticed that the LOS blockers at the 3rd aren't in the analyzer pics. Wouldn't those combined with the outward facing third mineral line make the DRG "dragon breath" style roach/muta very strong against P? Just trying to find something to complain about here
Pretty. Could you post close-ups and your fog-settings?
I really don´t think many players would go muta on this map. There is litterally no air-space behind the main judging from the analyzer. Mutas are kind of out of fashion anyway.
I love your aesthetics. I think pretty much every map you make looks amazing. Most of the map looks solid except I don't like the mineral placements on the two corner lowground bases and I would like if the forward third bases minerals were tucked in a little more. I know you want some space to maneuver units around behind it but I think there is already plenty.
Have you thought of just having 1 watchtower in the direct middle instead of having the 2 where they are now? Only reason I dislike is now is because if any early game 1 or 2 base pressure is going to happen it's coming straight through the middle which isn't covered by watchtowers. Just a thought.
Given the chokiness of all the routes at the equator, I don't think you need that doodad clump outside the natural next to the LosB. Also, you might want to scoot the towers one square closer to the middle. Not for coverage reasons, but because you can activate them from the ramp (I think). Not sure if this is intended or if it matters to you, but seems to go against the spirit of the placement.
I'm not sure, but isn't the fourth (12 and 6) base really easy to defend as T ? And very hard to defend as Z in ZvP if your opponent goes for a sentry drop ?
I don't really like the central low grounds. They aren't on important pathways and don't have anything really useful in them besides a watchtower that doesn't really see to much. Have you considered kicking them up to high grounds? Because I think that would make them much more used and fun.
This map I kinda neat, and I do like the two third options given here. However, I think you might have forgotten about the age only mapmkaing plague known as circle syndrome. I think removing the high ground bases at 2:30 and 5:30 would solve this problem.
Though, I still desire more interesting positioning conflicts as I mentioned on the Crystarium thread, but I suppose this is fine as you do have to move your army around a little bit. Though, adding an additional entrance into the third would certainly make it much, much better. Even if it's just blocked by rocks. Though, not sure if this would fit your intentions with the third design, so I could see why you would opt not to do this. Otherwise, this is a solid map that I might find myself playing at some point in the future. Well done!
On May 10 2012 05:21 Timetwister22 wrote: This map I kinda neat, and I do like the two third options given here. However, I think you might have forgotten about the age only mapmkaing plague known as circle syndrome. I think removing the high ground bases at 2:30 and 5:30 would solve this problem.
I don't think there's any problem. Circle Syndrome isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself, and it depends on the context. For example, if Ohana had CS, it would be terrible, since Ohana only has 4 expansions on each side, and the 2 players would almost always have bases near each other. However, most rotational 4p maps have nearly complete CS, but are however fine, because there are so many bases. If the conflict associated with CS happens on one of those maps, it's usually more exciting, because the battles are being held over 2 late-game bases. If there are 5 or more expansions per side, it's more likely this will also occur on a 2p map.
The original conversations regarding Circle Syndrome prefaced it by saying that's it not good or bad on its own, I figure it appropriate to dispel any misconceptions that it is.
Nifty layout though, I'm just sorta bored by the aesthetic. I think, to run with the name "Silver Sands", some more of Valhalla Sand/Cracked Dirt might help to differentiate it from, say, Arid Plateau. Think about it. Right now, it's sorta the same, sans the grass.
And actually, now that I think of it, maybe some monlyth dunes would be neat. Mixing the blue and grey sands should really strike an observer as silver, which should be cool.
And of course, if you think I'm spewing nonsense and don't want to change your textures at all, that's fine too.
On May 10 2012 05:21 Timetwister22 wrote: This map I kinda neat, and I do like the two third options given here. However, I think you might have forgotten about the age only mapmkaing plague known as circle syndrome. I think removing the high ground bases at 2:30 and 5:30 would solve this problem.
Though, I still desire more interesting positioning conflicts as I mentioned on the Crystarium thread, but I suppose this is fine as you do have to move your army around a little bit. Though, adding an additional entrance into the third would certainly make it much, much better. Even if it's just blocked by rocks. Though, not sure if this would fit your intentions with the third design, so I could see why you would opt not to do this. Otherwise, this is a solid map that I might find myself playing at some point in the future. Well done!
It's not that I didn't consider giving the CW third a backdoor - I wanted to avoid promoting horizontal split, to avoid CS!
Intended worst case by design (vertical split): + Show Spoiler +
But on the other hand, even if you DO expand horizontal it's not likely one player would have the CCW third still, when the other player gets the last horizontal base?
Also, I think the CW third gives the map some characteristics the way it is. BTW, thanks, glad you like it!
On May 10 2012 02:42 EatThePath wrote: Also, you might want to scoot the towers one square closer to the middle. Not for coverage reasons, but because you can activate them from the ramp (I think). Not sure if this is intended or if it matters to you, but seems to go against the spirit of the placement.
Well observed. I tested and you were right. I'll move the tower some from the ramp, beacuse as you guess it wasnt intentional.
On May 10 2012 01:36 Aunvilgod wrote: Pretty. Could you post close-ups and your fog-settings?
I really don´t think many players would go muta on this map. There is litterally no air-space behind the main judging from the analyzer. Mutas are kind of out of fashion anyway.
I will post close-ups later. The airspace is a concern for me too, regarding the main. I think the nat and both thrids are nicely vulnerable to air. Mutas, for instance, could ping-pong between nat and CW third. Above the CW third there is some airspace. Adding more would be an easy fix if air harass really would prove too weak.
On May 10 2012 02:21 SidianTheBard wrote: I love your aesthetics. I think pretty much every map you make looks amazing. Most of the map looks solid except I don't like the mineral placements on the two corner lowground bases and I would like if the forward third bases minerals were tucked in a little more. I know you want some space to maneuver units around behind it but I think there is already plenty.
Have you thought of just having 1 watchtower in the direct middle instead of having the 2 where they are now? Only reason I dislike is now is because if any early game 1 or 2 base pressure is going to happen it's coming straight through the middle which isn't covered by watchtowers. Just a thought.
Thanks man!
Yes, I might relayout the 2 and 8 oclock around the mineral lines, and the CCW third is supposed to have much space for units, or I fear it would be both too vulnerable to air, given it's position and layout. Drops might be stronger, though. It's an easy fix if I'm wrong.
The middle blind to watchtowers is intentional. It forces players to actually scout the middle with units and use the watchtowers for scouting flanks / pushing high ground. Also, they still play a role later in the game this way.
On May 10 2012 04:41 RumbleBadger wrote: I don't really like the central low grounds. They aren't on important pathways and don't have anything really useful in them besides a watchtower that doesn't really see to much. Have you considered kicking them up to high grounds? Because I think that would make them much more used and fun.
I simply disagree. The towers would be too strong, the area too open and bland and flat. You use the low ground for the towers but also your armies or harassing units go there when flanking the CCW third, or when avoiding the shortest, most narrow middle path. It's also quite trafficed by air (and thus anti-air) for harrass on CCW third or bold, fast drops in main.
I think the map would be much cooler if the center was highground, as RumbleBadger suggested.
The towers wouldn't really be too strong, its not like there's much benefit from holding them in that location. It just gives vision which you'll probably have anyway. A contain isn't a good strategy there. If somehow it is too powerful (it won't be, I garuntee it- there is no imbalance it creates), you could just remove them. Definitely not a reason not to make it highground.
Highground would just make things a lot more dynamic around the expansions. They're all so spread out and have highground advantage that its kinda boring like this imo. A highground center would still allow the expansions to be taken, but it would introduce contain strategies, harassment, and easier ways to attack expos. Please do it, it'll make the map so much better BTW check out some of the replays of Afterglow in the Korean Weekly and see how some of the pros like Taeja use it. Its absolutely sick and makes gameplay a ton more interesting
My least favorite part of the map are the corner expos in top right and bottom left. They feel too packed in to me. You can take both by just controlling one corner of the map. There's lots of potential for this area though. To kill two birds with one stone, I'd do this http://i.imgur.com/kCMcs.jpg. You essentially fix the CS problems and reduce turtling/boring gameplay in the corner.
[edit] Super glad to see a new TPW map I like this one a lot!
I totally misread Rumble's suggestion on high grounds and thought he meant middle ground. It makes a lot more sense now. I ruled out high ground pods quite early, thinking it might be too powerful, but testing it now it seems fine, and probably even better.
I do think the highgrounds make a better map. Keep working. ;D
This is what I would do:
If you make it easier to take the clockwise 3rd (little quick path in black), there will be more tension in the decision. Right now the 3rd against the main is a lot safer. No big deal either way, I just like choices. ^^
If you make it easier, maybe also the base should have a slightly increased vulnerability -- narrow path drawn in white. This would also increase mobility, and allow a way to dodge the tower vision to get around in a clockwise path around the outside.
Highground in orange -- strictly more interesting than doodads. However, I deleted void space (increasing the ground connection to the natural) to make space for it. I would just say trash the doodad clump, the map could use the open space imo, which is somewhat out of style for no reason these days.
I'm glad this map is evolving. It seems to be getting up to the awesome level.
With the new tower placement, there is space for sneaking by the tower vision + Show Spoiler +
.
The reason the path to the CW third is to increase its cost/risk because its safer than the CCW third, and it has no backdoor because I don't want to promote horizontal expanding past the CW base, because of the CS case it would create. At least that's my reasoning atm. But when wiser men speak, I have been known to change my mind ^^
Open space and doodad clump .. hmm, still thinking.
On May 12 2012 16:23 Meltage wrote: With the new tower placement, there is space for sneaking by the tower vision + Show Spoiler +
.
The reason the path to the CW third is to increase its cost/risk because its safer than the CCW third, and it has no backdoor because I don't want to promote horizontal expanding past the CW base, because of the CS case it would create. At least that's my reasoning atm. But when wiser men speak, I have been known to change my mind ^^
Open space and doodad clump .. hmm, still thinking.
Ah okay should have checked analyzer first. ><
Yes I agree with your reasoning. imo the circularity wouldn't be so bad here; perfectly valid choice to avoid it though. Just my thoughts as usual. =)
This is one of the best maps ever made (for SC2), at this point. I'd like to see it on ladder/in tournaments at it's current point.
I have a few suggestions, though, all to further balance the expansion desirability between CCW and CW.
Yellow: Reapers and Colo should be able to move up and down here, and tank dropping there would most likely have no effect on the map.
Red: These LOS blockers currently punish players for rallying further towards center when on 2 bases / taking a third.
Orange: Like the LOS blockers @ 3 and 9 o'clock, would make players walk a bit further for vision, as well as making the low ground bases harder to hold in a horizontal split.
Teal: LOS blockers here on highground rewards players for army movement further onto the map, and promotes vertical split. In base ones are just simple hiding spots.
Green: Provides Terran more strategic options into 4 vs. 4 base scenarios.
Fuchsia: 3 of my suggestions would make these bases (TR and BL) harder to control in a horizontal split. This is to counterbalance that.
Imo you should make the highground as big as possible. It feels pretty small and puny right now. I'd like if it took up more area and was more important to the map itself, because atm its not that crucial for map control, engagements, etc.. Just make it as big as possible in places by making highground instead of the lvl 0 wasted space. Of course watch out for siege tank range on the third.
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 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).
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
Map is better than I thought. Look greater in real too! Good map!
I think you should look to add a base in the middle (one for each player). As zerg, I feel like it miss one base for the map dimensions. Top and bottom bases looks impossible to hold as zerg without mass spine/spore into it (too much narrow around it to surround Terran and Protoss mid-late game). Personally, I was not able to take those bases. Maybe it's me.
Distances and design are fine! I will play more game on it. Good Job!
Not knowledgeable enough about map making, or good enough at the game to give any gameplay suggestions (seems fun to play on though), but the map looks fantastic, both from above and when played.
@PandaZerg - thanks for testing! If you cut through the middle high grounds, you might be able to flank and surround an army at the wider area in between the high ground and the last base.
BTW, do you have replays?
I'd love to know how the map feels from the other players perspective in matchups vs zergs.
I thought a good idea would be to bring top and bottom bases nearest of each side and just enlarge a little bit the entrance. The map is also awesome like this too.
Or, at the bottom of left middle high ground between both ramp and at the top of right middle high ground between both ramps. But I think first idea would be better.
It's just personal suggestions. Before changing anything, I thing you should wait to get more feedback. I don't have interesting replay on it yet. I won an easy game and lost 2 against players. Otherwise, I did some game with AI to test how it would be easy to hold all bases in later game vs Protoss and Terran. Nothing very serious.
On May 29 2012 22:36 PandaZerg wrote: Or, at the bottom of left middle high ground between both ramp and at the top of right middle high ground between both ramps. But I think first idea would be better. .
Good luck for MotM final
Its great with feedback, regardless of how subjective it might be This is hard to understand, though. Could you draw a picture or something?
But honestly, I think you did a good job on the textures and the overall aesthetics and that gives your map something extra, next to proper map mechanics.
Published on EU in Arcade - Strategy as TPW Silver Sands
I also made a few aesthetic tweaks because of new lighting and fixed a small pathing bug (I'm pretty sure the pre-patch version of the editor did not display it)
On NA it's published as melee atm, without the small tweaks.
Prime, LG-IM, StarTale, FXOpen, MVP, NSH, Team AZUBU SC2, and Axiom-Acer will participate in the “Heart of the Swarm GSTL Pre-Season.” The game format will be single-elimination tournament, best of 7, all-kill format; all tournaments will be done on the HotS beta server, and the maps are the previously used Akilon Wastes, GSL Bel’shir Vestige SE, GSL Whirlwind Se, GSL Icarus. On top of this, new maps Howling Peak, DF Atlas, and TPW Silver Sands will be used starting with this team league.
Prime, LG-IM, StarTale, FXOpen, MVP, NSH, Team AZUBU SC2, and Axiom-Acer will participate in the “Heart of the Swarm GSTL Pre-Season.” The game format will be single-elimination tournament, best of 7, all-kill format; all tournaments will be done on the HotS beta server, and the maps are the previously used Akilon Wastes, GSL Bel’shir Vestige SE, GSL Whirlwind Se, GSL Icarus. On top of this, new maps Howling Peak, DF Atlas, and TPW Silver Sands will be used starting with this team league.
Cool stuff its been a long time since a big tournament has picked up a foreigner map!
This is awesome! yay! and it's a super technical map, too It just might be enough to make me buy a 2013 GSL ticket (previously I was happy with just a $5 proleague ticket, which was kind of a shame because of how cool the GSL was in 2012)
On February 12 2013 14:18 RFDaemoniac wrote: This is awesome! yay! and it's a super technical map, too It just might be enough to make me buy a 2013 GSL ticket (previously I was happy with just a $5 proleague ticket, which was kind of a shame because of how cool the GSL was in 2012)
this is still probably one of the prettiest overviews for a map I've seen (in-game up close I'm sure it's nice too). The blue and orange goes so well together. I guess there's a reason why so many movie posters use blue+orange http://www.slashfilm.com/orangeblue-contrast-in-movie-posters/
I concur. For some reason these things never escape me. Years of experience with BW walling have honed my eyes to transhuman capabilities to spot these things. I daresay I can even see on eyes if an ultralisk can or can't fit through the gap in a barracks and a depot.
It's pretty hard to miss that type of ramp placement, so if it's gone this long without being changed I daresay it was intentional. Whether or not it's better is a different point.
On February 13 2013 00:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: By the way, is this intentional:
This is a tight wall with 1 rax and 1 depot. Just realized you could wall like this from seeing the overview. I can't imagine this is intentional?
Thanks for bringing it up. There is some unstandard stuff going on in the main and natural. For instance, a prot FFE can be done with 1 nexus, 1 pylon and 1 gateway (or any 4x4 building) in the natural. I can make changes to the map but the actual map file is in the hands of GSL atm ^^ I don't know if they will contact me about changes and use the map I publish (GSL TPW Silver Sands in hots beta), or make changes themselves and publish their own file. There has been no contact with them after sending them the map file.
One would assume indeed it is intentional if it went by for so long. But one'd be hard pressed to find people who think this is a good idea.
Then again, in HotS this is ostensibly less of a problem than in WoL because P can scout gas with a mothership core. But still, I believe this map is supposed to suit WoL as well. In any case. I believe I speak for a lot of people when I say that being able to do this is a dealbreaker for a map. If it is intentional, note it as a pretty severe criticism on my part.
In any case, in this thread no one actually pointed it out. Which I find a very unusual thing if people actually were aware of it. Though the author may be aware and did it consciously, at the very least this decision is controversial and if people were largely aware of this it would've been hotly debated as this property of the map is about as controversial as a dropable high ground overlooking the natural.
On February 13 2013 00:58 SiskosGoatee wrote: By the way, is this intentional:
This is a tight wall with 1 rax and 1 depot. Just realized you could wall like this from seeing the overview. I can't imagine this is intentional?
Thanks for bringing it up. There is some unstandard stuff going on in the main and natural. For instance, a prot FFE can be done with 1 nexus, 1 pylon and 1 gateway (or any 4x4 building) in the natural. I can make changes to the map but the actual map file is in the hands of GSL atm ^^ I don't know if they will contact me about changes and use the map I publish (GSL TPW Silver Sands in hots beta), or make changes themselves and publish their own file. There has been no contact with them after sending them the map file.
This is another thing by the way, the ramp is I feel too close to the main building and congests army movement a bit too much when you come down the ramp to defend I feel. Maybe move the ramp a bit and also make it require a standard 2depot 1 rax wall?
Seeing this months ago, I didn't react much and had forgotten about it. Basically, I thought it's not necessarily bad. I can only asume GSL have noticed and believes the same. As I said, there's some unstandard stuff going on. If those features prove to be issues, there are easy fixes. The map provides the oportunity to test that out.
I made the map for WoL and don't know more than anyone else how it will play in HoTS. Ovies and MS cores, I supose.
BTW, I added 4 units of air space to the height of the map, so the height is now 128 up from 124. I also removed a doodad (unpathable, no effect on gameplay) that looked ugly on the main's cliff towards the natural. Those changes were not in the file I sent GSL. It'll be exciting to see if they'll make their own changes or not.
--
Monitor, thanks. It feels liek it has been worth those endless hours making maps when somethign liek this happens. Evne though you don't get paid. I should add, themap is like all my maps, a team effort. If you have somehting to say about the tower placement or corner bases, please do
Mothership core probably makes the ability to wall with 1 depot and rax not that much of a problem any more yeah. In WoL it's kind of ridiculous though if it's on a ramp. Bel'Shir beach also had it and it was kind of stupid but at least you didn't have high ground advantage so a stalker could pressure the wall forcing you to reveal what you had.
Personally, I don't like ramp designs like that because they don't allow you to set up a good concave on top of the ramp either.
Edit: Well, say you use this and then proxy a rax in the middle of the map some-where, MSC won't arrive at the base before it gets going and if ti does, you don't have your MsC to help defend stuff. While it might not be game breakingly broken, I also see no real advantage in keeping it like that, it doesn't offer new and exciting play apart from cheeses that are harder to scout and deal with and making every matchup more of a coinflip.
On February 13 2013 21:47 SiskosGoatee wrote: Mothership core probably makes the ability to wall with 1 depot and rax not that much of a problem any more yeah. In WoL it's kind of ridiculous though if it's on a ramp. Bel'Shir beach also had it and it was kind of stupid but at least you didn't have high ground advantage so a stalker could pressure the wall forcing you to reveal what you had.
Personally, I don't like ramp designs like that because they don't allow you to set up a good concave on top of the ramp either.
Edit: Well, say you use this and then proxy a rax in the middle of the map some-where, MSC won't arrive at the base before it gets going and if ti does, you don't have your MsC to help defend stuff. While it might not be game breakingly broken, I also see no real advantage in keeping it like that, it doesn't offer new and exciting play apart from cheeses that are harder to scout and deal with and making every matchup more of a coinflip.
I think you're heavily exaggerating how little a 2 building wall off actually changes.
If they proxy a rax in the middle of the map it wouldn't make a difference if you could get into the main anyway.
I'm so hyped. Having google translate form korean this page says that MKP fights soO in the first game on this map, starting 6.10 CET (14:10 KST) on sunday. And DF Atlas is played on the first game of the tournament on saturday.
I'm so hyped. Having google translate form korean this page says that MKP fights soO in the first game on this map, starting 6.10 CET (14:10 KST) on sunday. And DF Atlas is played on the first game of the tournament on saturday.
On February 13 2013 09:02 MarcusRife wrote: I played a game on the GSTL TPW Silver Sands map and my Mutalisks had WOL stats. Can someone else verify? There might be other issues as well.
i played that yesterday in the beta, and yes, it was a WoL down-mod, no MSC, old VRs etc...
My mistake, I had a version of the map called "GSTL TPW SilverSands" published by mistake, that was prob using WoL dependencies. I removed theat map a few hours ago when I noticed. The "official" version to play should be 'GSL TPW Silver Sands' in both HOTS beta and WoL EU, without issues.
After seeing the map played I got to say you need to fix all of the high ground pods, they are really not clear and I am sure the players were confused themselves as well as the viewers, I would make few areas only droppable and mark them as such somehow, and the rest you can not drop onto. The map seems good, but unclear things should be fixed. As a Protoss I also dislike the easily wallable main, but I guess its ok that way even if it wasn't your first intention, only slightly annoying.
MMA vs Ragnarok was amazing on this map, the little area that T can put siege tanks / marine / widow mine is very nice and it's cool in TvZ because zerg has an answer to it (viper with blinding cloud + abduct).
you need to fix all of the high ground pods, they are really not clear and I am sure the players were confused themselves as well as the viewers, I would make few areas only droppable and mark them as such somehow, and the rest you can not drop onto.
I sort of agree with this, in that I didn't realize that all the pods were droppable. That said, how are you supposed to clarify that these locations are droppable? Every pod on the map seems to be pathable, so it isn't as though the map itself is internally inconsistent. I think it's just because we've seen a good number of maps where people didn't bother to put doodads all over unpathable high grounds that there's some ambiguity about whether a certain area is in fact droppable. It might also be because we haven't seen this many pathable high ground areas that some people (myself included) assumed they were unpathable, like the majority of tiny high ground pods we see lately.
I actually like the way they are all droppable, it just might take a little getting used to.
On February 24 2013 01:17 moskonia wrote: After seeing the map played I got to say you need to fix all of the high ground pods, they are really not clear and I am sure the players were confused themselves as well as the viewers, I would make few areas only droppable and mark them as such somehow, and the rest you can not drop onto. The map seems good, but unclear things should be fixed. As a Protoss I also dislike the easily wallable main, but I guess its ok that way even if it wasn't your first intention, only slightly annoying.
Thanks for the feedback. To be honest I didnt think marines coudl be dropped on the really small pods. ButI've made sure you cant drop on anythign that has decorative models (aka doodads in the editor) on top of them. Those that are intended to be dropable shoudl be quite clear. Please be specific if you can from looking at the overview picture or the time in the VOD. I actually don't think the players were confused .. I think they knew and exploited the map as much as possible. MMA was awesome in that regard.
I should also add that the GSTL version of the map is out of my hands. All I can do is update my own version of GSL TPW Silver Sands on EU, perhaps NA and on HotS beta.
On February 24 2013 03:50 nomyx wrote: MMA vs Ragnarok was amazing on this map, the little area that T can put siege tanks / marine / widow mine is very nice and it's cool in TvZ because zerg has an answer to it (viper with blinding cloud + abduct).
Yes. I enjoyed seeing this too. In the OP there are detail images showing all the intended dropzones.
EDIT: there were some issues. There should be small rocks and/or other decarative models were you can't drop. In my suported version of the map the ovie-pods where you could drop 3x marines are fixed in the HotS version (currently can't use the WoL editor atm ). See version history for the fixes.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P8VyM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBNMS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oxu0nUX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gMK2dEp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kQwEWX7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RN4doSI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iQeq1o7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GKzIruW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yuQZcqO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LYnlxat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n4HjLHk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gH5M36r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/55LZbFu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xq2Sqyv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U30C0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yjDFo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1lVkJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DNIat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q16YA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/16Zig.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jqdgC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uBwI5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pSpIh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oQjSr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ObdKf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BrWGj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GBwbC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ABlfP.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7Bf7qr8LYdY/URpmjQAS6CI/AAAAAAAABKQ/4_EmI45x4o4/s800/Screenshot2013-02-12%252016_56_47.jpg)
