|
[M] (6) Hextower (1v1 map)
Playable Size: 156x156
Published in: NA/SEA
Published in KR as: cS_육각 타워
It's a 6 player map for 1v1.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sBqZZ.jpg)
Rush distances:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1RBtl.jpg) Every "closer bases" have rush distances of 41. The scouting pattern does not go directly thru the watchtower, ever.
Features:
- Close spawns are not possible (for example, if you're 12 o' clock, 2 o' clock and 10 o' clock are disabled). Therefore, this map essentially becomes a 4 player map.
+ Show Spoiler +
- The mains become the third; and the mains are guarded by a rich mineral wall, which the defender can destroy easily, but not the opponent, as you have to invest 11 workers to break the back door (77 minerals).
+ Show Spoiler +
- The main ramp is a 3 wide ramp blocked by a rock to make it into a 1 wide ramp. I did this to make the third a bit more vulnerable when you expand clockwise.
- There is a lowground in the center, and bunch of obstacles, line-of sight blockers etc.
- There is a reaper entrance per base.
- The mono rail lines as shown are no fly zones; hence making this map's boundary circle-ish, to lessen positional imbalances.
Map Philosophy:
-Coming Soon-
Please give me feedback, and send replays/thoughts to kim9067@gmail.com!
|
Interesting map I am not so sure if I am a fan of the whole circle map design but still it looks interesting.I am wondering about this Mineral wall the only way to destroy it is to harvest it ? Good job and keep the good work.
|
On June 04 2012 21:42 MMDollar wrote:
Interesting map I am not so sure if I am a fan of the whole circle map design but still it looks interesting.I am wondering about this Mineral wall the only way to destroy it is to harvest it ? Good job and keep the good work.
Thanks for the response.
Yeah I thought about adding central bases, but the map is not that large (156x156) and there would be too many bases per player.
Yes the mineral walls are harvestable ONLY.
I've tested the map intensively, around 20 games so far in NA and KR; It brings some interesting games but I am not sure if they're at all imbalanced.
|
I am afraid it has circle syndrome! (Obvious joke is obvious.)
Very interesting concept, to say the least.
|
As a zerg, I think I would be ok to take 11 workers and open the back door of a terran/protoss; especially if he didn't wall of. But it's not impossible to take care of it. A terran 'only' has to sacrifice 2 mules and 3 workers; which is also not that expensive.
|
On June 04 2012 22:22 AdrianHealey wrote:
As a zerg, I think I would be ok to take 11 workers and open the back door of a terran/protoss; especially if he didn't wall of. But it's not impossible to take care of it. A terran 'only' has to sacrifice 2 mules and 3 workers; which is also not that expensive.
I guess for an all in, the back door will be perfect. The thing to note is that you can't break the rocks immediately, according to your army size; it's constant, 1 worker saturate at a time. do you think the amount should be raised?
|
Poll: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.Maps with this are basicly unplayable. (27) 44% Okay, but in special circumstances. (14) 23% A bad feature that makes the map worse by default. (9) 15% A compleatly fine map feature. (8) 13% Fine map feature, but only if backdoor is blocked by rocks or other (3) 5% 61 total votes Your vote: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke. (Vote): A compleatly fine map feature.
(Vote): Fine map feature, but only if backdoor is blocked by rocks or other
(Vote): Okay, but in special circumstances.
(Vote): A bad feature that makes the map worse by default.
(Vote): Maps with this are basicly unplayable.
Yeah. Its not nice having to defend the main base from 2 opposite directions, one of them being super wide, both being very accessible. Especially when you expand CCW and have to mine the blocking minerals yourself.
But that is very minor complaint compared to the base imbalance. 2 of the mains have 0 air space behind them. 1 of the mains have big air space on one side. 3 of the mains have huge air space on every side.
Now do you think its fun when enemy leaves an OV behind your main mineral line and sees everything you do, but you can do no such thing and have to play blindly?
Or when enemy harass you with cloak banshee and when you scan he runs the banshee to the air behind main mineral line and is untouchable by your marines, but when enemy scans your banshee, it has no where to run and dies certainly?
I know about the monorail thing, but it is critical to have as identical air spaces behind every main and natural as possible, or the match, will become extremely unfair. The monorails do not achieve this. This is the reason making 3, and 5+ player maps is difficult.
Oh, also the middle is too open.
|
12Base map just isn't enough with soo many spawns. Most 4 spawn maps have 16 and are smaller.
Also if player 1 spawns at 12 and player 2 spawns at 8, player 1 has a huge advantage. Especially in TvT.
|
On June 04 2012 23:09 Sea_Food wrote:Poll: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.Maps with this are basicly unplayable. (27) 44% Okay, but in special circumstances. (14) 23% A bad feature that makes the map worse by default. (9) 15% A compleatly fine map feature. (8) 13% Fine map feature, but only if backdoor is blocked by rocks or other (3) 5% 61 total votes Your vote: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke. (Vote): A compleatly fine map feature.
(Vote): Fine map feature, but only if backdoor is blocked by rocks or other
(Vote): Okay, but in special circumstances.
(Vote): A bad feature that makes the map worse by default.
(Vote): Maps with this are basicly unplayable.
Yeah. Its not nice having to defend the main base from 2 opposite directions, one of them being super wide, both being very accessible. Especially when you expand CCW and have to mine the blocking minerals yourself. But that is very minor complaint compared to the base imbalance. 2 of the mains have 0 air space behind them. 1 of the mains have big air space on one side. 3 of the mains have huge air space on every side. Now do you think its fun when enemy leaves an OV behind your main mineral line and sees everything you do, but you can do no such thing and have to play blindly? Or when enemy harass you with cloak banshee and when you scan he runs the banshee to the air behind main mineral line and is untouchable by your marines, but when enemy scans your banshee, it has no where to run and dies certainly? I know about the monorail thing, but it is critical to have as identical air spaces behind every main and natural as possible, or the match, will become extremely unfair. The monorails do not achieve this. This is the reason making 3, and 5+ player maps is difficult. Oh, also the middle is too open.
... Sigh. The backdoor is mineral. It's almost impossible to open as the attacker, and the main ramp is closer. Unless you pull 11 workers, which become an all in, which wouldnt change much. I can change the mineral amount.
the air space thing is very misleading from the map image, each bases have equal air space. Also, this is same problem as 3 player maps. i already said this in my explanation.
you dont have to expand CCW, thats why the backdoor is there. for a 3rd, you essentially open another entrance to your base. If your point stands true, i will add the minerals so you have to pull LOTS of workers for the backdoor.
I guess the monorails are not clear either.
EDIT: also, the backdoor isnt closer than the main ramp. I made sure of that.
Oh, and why is the middle open? Almost all parts are wallable by 3-4 forcefields. there's not just line of sight blockers, there are buildings too... I was afraid it was too closed 
|
How many squares across is the natural choke?
How far away is the ramp to the building-area? (This is just the FFE in me that wants to know)
Is that area in the middle higher or lower? I can't really tell.
A protoss 2 base all-in seems like it would be incredibly powerful, maybe there's a way to get the natural and a third a little more connected.
I'm rather interested in this, keep it up.
|
On June 04 2012 23:43 Shadowslayer wrote:
How many squares across is the natural choke?
How far away is the ramp to the building-area? (This is just the FFE in me that wants to know)
Is that area in the middle higher or lower? I can't really tell.
A protoss 2 base all-in seems like it would be incredibly powerful, maybe there's a way to get the natural and a third a little more connected.
I'm rather interested in this, keep it up.
It is FFEable, 3 buildings lock it tight.
Area in the middle is lower.
If you expand circle-ly, you can get the natural connection. Even if you expand using the backdoor, it the expansions still have one entrance, if there's no air. I guess It's quite limited though. Why do you think protoss all ins would be strong?
What do you mean by how far away is the ramp to the building-area?
|
On June 04 2012 23:52 kim9067 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 23:43 Shadowslayer wrote:
How many squares across is the natural choke?
How far away is the ramp to the building-area? (This is just the FFE in me that wants to know)
Is that area in the middle higher or lower? I can't really tell.
A protoss 2 base all-in seems like it would be incredibly powerful, maybe there's a way to get the natural and a third a little more connected.
I'm rather interested in this, keep it up. It is FFEable, 3 buildings lock it tight. Area in the middle is lower. If you expand circle-ly, you can get the natural connection. Even if you expand using the backdoor, it the expansions still have one entrance, if there's no air. I guess It's quite limited though. Why do you think protoss all ins would be strong? What do you mean by how far away is the ramp to the building-area?
Ah, I forgot about the minerals blocking to the third >_>
So I thought that the only way to expand is through the middle area, which could easily screw over a zerg's reinforcements.
Like where the nexus would be planted, I don't know what that's called, if anything.
|
On June 04 2012 23:59 Shadowslayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2012 23:52 kim9067 wrote:On June 04 2012 23:43 Shadowslayer wrote:
How many squares across is the natural choke?
How far away is the ramp to the building-area? (This is just the FFE in me that wants to know)
Is that area in the middle higher or lower? I can't really tell.
A protoss 2 base all-in seems like it would be incredibly powerful, maybe there's a way to get the natural and a third a little more connected.
I'm rather interested in this, keep it up. It is FFEable, 3 buildings lock it tight. Area in the middle is lower. If you expand circle-ly, you can get the natural connection. Even if you expand using the backdoor, it the expansions still have one entrance, if there's no air. I guess It's quite limited though. Why do you think protoss all ins would be strong? What do you mean by how far away is the ramp to the building-area? Ah, I forgot about the minerals blocking to the third >_> So I thought that the only way to expand is through the middle area, which could easily screw over a zerg's reinforcements. Like where the nexus would be planted, I don't know what that's called, if anything.
bit shorter than the antiga natural ramp.
|
Poll: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.
It's not about this, it's bad if the distance between main choke and main backdoor is shorter for the attacker than the defender.
It's even worse on blistering sands because the attacker can attack the natural and main backdoor from the same position and the defender can't do anything about it.
In this map the main choke to main backdoor distance is shorter for the defender so it's fine, keep it.
|
It looks like you did a pretty good job, when will this be in the EU? 
|
|
|
On June 05 2012 00:34 moskonia wrote:It looks like you did a pretty good job, when will this be in the EU?
Do you want to upload it to EU? XD I can't, because I don't have an EU account. 
|
meh i could still see things like 3 rax + 11 scvs work really well coming through the back door.
|
On June 05 2012 01:37 EcstatiC wrote:
meh i could still see things like 3 rax + 11 scvs work really well coming through the back door.
It takes quite a while to break the backdoor, since only one scv can mine at a time. What I can do is lessen the mineral you take, and lesson the amount the mules take... Would that make it balanced or too complicated?
|
On June 05 2012 00:08 Superouman wrote:
Poll: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.
It's not about this, it's bad if the distance between main choke and main backdoor is shorter for the attacker than the defender.
It's even worse on blistering sands because the attacker can attack the natural and main backdoor from the same position and the defender can't do anything about it.
In this map the main choke to main backdoor distance is shorter for the defender so it's fine, keep it.
Dear god thank you
I've been brainstorming about this sort of map on and off since the game came out. The problem I had was not how to make it nominally balanced in the base setup --> 3rd base issues, but how to make an interesting map beyond the 6spawn gimmick. (I say gimmick, but it is genuinely an interesting setup, it just doesn't offer anything special beyond scouting and the 3rd base.)
This map, you have way too much open space through the middle, the LosB help break it up but don't change the fighting characteristics much (pro zerg everywhere), and the ramps in the middle barely matter to the map. This isn't really a huge problem to me because I take it this is more of a proof of concept, and I think you did that well enough. It just offers very little as a new map besides the "gimmick". I think the key to making a map on this foundation at the size you used is to have some bases in the center somewhere that pull the players in. If not this, you need more circuitous passage between the bases on the inside of the circuit along all the main ramps.
Anyway I like the choices you made to get it to hang together. What are your thoughts on reducing the overall size?
edit: To be more specific about the center... what I'd really like to see is a forward position that helps a player defend better when they take a lowground 3rd on the other side of their main. Right now if you "head them off" from outside your 2-entrance enclave, your army is completely out in the open. For example, this creates a situation in PvZ where protoss will always take a high ground 3rd regardless of spawns. Maybe that's just how the map has to be played but I'd prefer more options to consolidate your bases by guarding forward routes.
|
On June 05 2012 02:05 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 00:08 Superouman wrote:
Poll: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.
It's not about this, it's bad if the distance between main choke and main backdoor is shorter for the attacker than the defender.
It's even worse on blistering sands because the attacker can attack the natural and main backdoor from the same position and the defender can't do anything about it.
In this map the main choke to main backdoor distance is shorter for the defender so it's fine, keep it. Dear god thank youI've been brainstorming about this sort of map on and off since the game came out. The problem I had was not how to make it nominally balanced in the base setup --> 3rd base issues, but how to make an interesting map beyond the 6spawn gimmick. (I say gimmick, but it is genuinely an interesting setup, it just doesn't offer anything special beyond scouting and the 3rd base.) This map, you have way too much open space through the middle, the LosB help break it up but don't change the fighting characteristics much (pro zerg everywhere), and the ramps in the middle barely matter to the map. This isn't really a huge problem to me because I take it this is more of a proof of concept, and I think you did that well enough. It just offers very little as a new map besides the "gimmick". I think the key to making a map on this foundation at the size you used is to have some bases in the center somewhere that pull the players in. If not this, you need more circuitous passage between the bases on the inside of the circuit along all the main ramps. Anyway I like the choices you made to get it to hang together. What are your thoughts on reducing the overall size? edit: To be more specific about the center... what I'd really like to see is a forward position that helps a player defend better when they take a lowground 3rd on the other side of their main. Right now if you "head them off" from outside your 2-entrance enclave, your army is completely out in the open. For example, this creates a situation in PvZ where protoss will always take a high ground 3rd regardless of spawns. Maybe that's just how the map has to be played but I'd prefer more options to consolidate your bases by guarding forward routes.
Yeah, dear god thank you. Sea Food really had no idea what he was talking about T.T
i guess the middle is pretty open, but they're all blockable via 4-5 forcefields. Im not sure if i should make it more chokey.
If i make the map any more smaller, the mains will be tankable and so will the naturals, which i want to avoid. If i put bases in center it is way too in the center and i feel it will be only good for terran. what do you think? It's a 6 player map which makes this even more difficult. if i put center bases, i have to put 6 of them, which is too many bases. GOD wat can i do. maybe 4 bases in the center? im really not sure how to approach this.
|
Main backdoor choke = suicidal map.
I don't think anyone will ever try to engage a battle in the center of the map because of the 4 chokes.
Too little expos and too many destructible rocks!
The 6 player 1v1 map concept should be more widespread; it could have been an interesting map.
How big is this map in actual dimensions? I'm curious!
|
On June 05 2012 03:11 sorrowptoss wrote:
Main backdoor choke = suicidal map.
I don't think anyone will ever try to engage a battle in the center of the map because of the 4 chokes.
Too little expos and too many destructible rocks!
The 6 player 1v1 map concept should be more widespread; it could have been an interesting map.
How big is this map in actual dimensions? I'm curious!
BACKDOOR IS MINERALS NOT ROCKS please conceptualize this... It is not as easy to break the back door... sigh
also i might add central bases hugging the main. still testing. it's 156 by 156. the idea isnt that the 6 spawns are individual, they're supposed to be connected so it's not a complete 6 player map.
|
United States10141 Posts
dear god it is perfect circle syndrome. *faints*
not a bad concept, its one of the better 6p maps for 1v1 ive seen.
|
On June 05 2012 04:59 FlaShFTW wrote:
dear god it is perfect circle syndrome. *faints*
not a bad concept, its one of the better 6p maps for 1v1 ive seen.
Wait, there were other 6p maps for 1v1?? Could I see them? I'd love to note their base layout and see if they work.
|
Map looks a bit boring: Just expand in a circle and always fight in the same positions.
|
An idea to pimp it would be to make it always cross spawn and to change the middle in such a way that each and every cross spawn would cause a different dymanic in the middle.
|
This is new and exciting! I like the idea of making the middle a bit more interesting, but I think cross spawns only would kind of kill some of the excitement of having to scout different spawns.
I would love to see a more polished version of this with some more interesting terrain in the middle.
How did you make those giant mineral patches?
|
On June 05 2012 07:33 TheFish7 wrote:
This is new and exciting! I like the idea of making the middle a bit more interesting, but I think cross spawns only would kind of kill some of the excitement of having to scout different spawns.
I would love to see a more polished version of this with some more interesting terrain in the middle.
How did you make those giant mineral patches?
Footprint of desructible rocks, and size scale 3.
I am in fact working on a polished version of this map, a bit smaller as well.
|
On June 05 2012 02:33 kim9067 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2012 02:05 EatThePath wrote:On June 05 2012 00:08 Superouman wrote:
Poll: Main choke to main backdoor is shorter than main choke to main choke.
It's not about this, it's bad if the distance between main choke and main backdoor is shorter for the attacker than the defender.
It's even worse on blistering sands because the attacker can attack the natural and main backdoor from the same position and the defender can't do anything about it.
In this map the main choke to main backdoor distance is shorter for the defender so it's fine, keep it. Dear god thank youI've been brainstorming about this sort of map on and off since the game came out. The problem I had was not how to make it nominally balanced in the base setup --> 3rd base issues, but how to make an interesting map beyond the 6spawn gimmick. (I say gimmick, but it is genuinely an interesting setup, it just doesn't offer anything special beyond scouting and the 3rd base.) This map, you have way too much open space through the middle, the LosB help break it up but don't change the fighting characteristics much (pro zerg everywhere), and the ramps in the middle barely matter to the map. This isn't really a huge problem to me because I take it this is more of a proof of concept, and I think you did that well enough. It just offers very little as a new map besides the "gimmick". I think the key to making a map on this foundation at the size you used is to have some bases in the center somewhere that pull the players in. If not this, you need more circuitous passage between the bases on the inside of the circuit along all the main ramps. Anyway I like the choices you made to get it to hang together. What are your thoughts on reducing the overall size? edit: To be more specific about the center... what I'd really like to see is a forward position that helps a player defend better when they take a lowground 3rd on the other side of their main. Right now if you "head them off" from outside your 2-entrance enclave, your army is completely out in the open. For example, this creates a situation in PvZ where protoss will always take a high ground 3rd regardless of spawns. Maybe that's just how the map has to be played but I'd prefer more options to consolidate your bases by guarding forward routes. Yeah, dear god thank you. Sea Food really had no idea what he was talking about T.T i guess the middle is pretty open, but they're all blockable via 4-5 forcefields. Im not sure if i should make it more chokey. If i make the map any more smaller, the mains will be tankable and so will the naturals, which i want to avoid. If i put bases in center it is way too in the center and i feel it will be only good for terran. what do you think? It's a 6 player map which makes this even more difficult. if i put center bases, i have to put 6 of them, which is too many bases. GOD wat can i do. maybe 4 bases in the center? im really not sure how to approach this.
Well seafood is always good for an argument about this or that.
Tanks, rush distances, terran center bases, too chokey, these are all difficult problems. Maybe it's impossible to create a perfect incarnation of it. My thinking with the center bases is that it will create more spaces than just 1. middle 2. outer ring. I thought 2 or 3 would be best, because 4 takes up quite a lot of space, and has the most difference based on spawn locations. Since the map already has a light rotational aspect, the center can play off of that potentially, although the more perfectly symmetrical the less balance pitfalls.
About the openness, you do have those obstructions, including the sides of the ramps, which create relative funnels, but 4-5 forcefields is a lot these days (based on sentry counts in typical macro build compositions), so the middle is such that a decent protoss army can survive, but it has nowhere in can pick a good fight. So traversing the middle is dangerous if the army has any slow units (tech units), and this leads to deathball strategy or all-in timings. If there were some severe chokes at certain points the relative openness would be much less problematic overall. I suppose certain terran armies would enjoy it too, while it also creates opportunities for baneling mines and fungal growth leverage. On a map where the distances can be pretty long it's nice to have little spots where a small army feels comfortable flirting with engaging a larger army, so you can be out on the map a little with some hope of getting home if you need to.
|
wow, this is pretty interesting when you think about it (no close positions, hurray xD)
thanks for making! also, nice on testing ~20 games :D
|
On June 05 2012 07:21 AdrianHealey wrote:
An idea to pimp it would be to make it always cross spawn and to change the middle in such a way that each and every cross spawn would cause a different dymanic in the middle.
I would never make it cross only. That would seriously kill the map. It is very difficult becuase it's a 6 player map and EACH spawn has to be somewhat equal (minus the standard ramps T.T)
|
So I worked on the map a little more, and here's the result:
I closed the monorails, all spawns should have equal map boundaries.
Added center bases. What do you think?'
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ESSFv.jpg)
|
How about making the middle bases half bases (6m1hyg or 5m1g)? cause right now there are 18 bases, and even though most likely you wont be able to take all the bases possible, it is still a crazy amount. Also, the minerals and gas looks a bit cramped in there, and with less resources it would look better
Oh, and I can host it in EU for you, just give me the details
|
On June 07 2012 19:25 moskonia wrote:How about making the middle bases half bases (6m1hyg or 5m1g)? cause right now there are 18 bases, and even though most likely you wont be able to take all the bases possible, it is still a crazy amount. Also, the minerals and gas looks a bit cramped in there, and with less resources it would look better Oh, and I can host it in EU for you, just give me the details
Thanks for the feedback. I thought of that, then realized that there are 6 half bases then, which i thought might be too Terran favored, as they have mules that stack. But I will consider it after some testing.
Since it's a 6 player map, it's 12 minerals or 18 minerals - Quite tough to decide.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EJhPW.jpg)
Hey guys, I've been working on a new version of this map, this time it is significantly smaller. what do you think? (just fill in the other bases with your imagination, backdoors are mineral wall, etc)
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zDyFE.jpg)
Update to map!
-Aesthetic changes
-LOS Blockers added
-Changed central bases to 6m 1g bases
-Etc
|
LOL! just realized the center looks like an eye
Anyways, I don't think the map is to big, what is the distance between the main ramps?
|
I'm liking this map more and more. Maybe do something with the center like what they did w/  Sniper Ridge.
That way it'll be less open and it makes runby's and possitioning more important.
|
On June 16 2012 21:15 moskonia wrote:LOL! just realized the center looks like an eye Anyways, I don't think the map is to big, what is the distance between the main ramps?
Yeah I want to know that as well, but the thing is the map analyzer doesnt work for me for some reason... Can anyone do it?
Haha it does, I tried to make it as symmetrical as possible, but i dont think complete symmetry is necesary, if you look at blizz maps they're not completely symmetrical.
|
|
|
Ok. That seems like a good idea. WIll try that out. Thanks!
|
I'm back with the results!
Some interesting things I found:
- Surprisingly, every "closer" spawns all had the same rush distance of 41! I was so shocked.
- Cross spawns have different rush distances, but I think it's ok to have them different because it's cross spawn.
- none of the scouting patterns actually go thru the watchtower! (from ramp to ramp pathing only though)
- Main to ramp is quite similar except for the top and the bottom.
|
These are very standard timings, the map size is good, don't change it
|
On June 17 2012 21:55 moskonia wrote:These are very standard timings, the map size is good, don't change it
The distances are from main ramp to main ramp, which kinda worries me a little. Do you think natural to natural dist would be fine?
|
New Update to the Map!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YPdXb.jpg)
- Changed the Barriers in the Center so they're clearer for the players
- Filled in spaces between ramps so things like blink stalkers getting stuck there cannot happen anymore
- Changed some looks!
|
|
|
On June 24 2012 17:23 Bswhunter wrote:
Cool map
Thanks.
Also, Map Update:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IMDGk.jpg)
Every ramp except the center ones have been standardized (T.T)
There is now a guide in the loading screen that tells you about the map.
|
I can imagine tanks on the high ground at the third (?) (which is blocked by the minerals) being a hell to clear up. Some sort of siege tank all in vs 1 rax CC can be devastating.
|
Less is more, one universal rule says: once something becomes to complicated, it has to be made simple.
I understand you've put a lot of work into this.
So i commend you for the great effort, but sometimes one have to give up that shiny idea, and look at it from a different perspective.
Keep up the enthusiasm, and try again
|
On June 25 2012 21:12 xTrim wrote:
I can imagine tanks on the high ground at the third (?) (which is blocked by the minerals) being a hell to clear up. Some sort of siege tank all in vs 1 rax CC can be devastating.
You cannot hit the natural from the high ground. I understand it'll be difficult to clear up though.
I guess if you see this coming you should clear the mineral fields? I haven't seen enough games to be sure, though.
On June 25 2012 21:33 Guardian85 wrote:Less is more, one universal rule says: once something becomes to complicated, it has to be made simple. I understand you've put a lot of work into this. So i commend you for the great effort, but sometimes one have to give up that shiny idea, and look at it from a different perspective. Keep up the enthusiasm, and try again
What? firstly, you're contradicting yourself, you said it has to be made simple, and then you said to give up... Doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think you're in a position to tell people to give up what they're doing; plus, you haven't given ANY reason why, probably because you don't understand much about mapmaking.
|
United States10141 Posts
On June 26 2012 09:51 kim9067 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:12 xTrim wrote:
I can imagine tanks on the high ground at the third (?) (which is blocked by the minerals) being a hell to clear up. Some sort of siege tank all in vs 1 rax CC can be devastating. You cannot hit the natural from the high ground. I understand it'll be difficult to clear up though. I guess if you see this coming you should clear the mineral fields? I haven't seen enough games to be sure, though. Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:33 Guardian85 wrote:Less is more, one universal rule says: once something becomes to complicated, it has to be made simple. I understand you've put a lot of work into this. So i commend you for the great effort, but sometimes one have to give up that shiny idea, and look at it from a different perspective. Keep up the enthusiasm, and try again What? firstly, you're contradicting yourself, you said it has to be made simple, and then you said to give up... Doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think you're in a position to tell people to give up what they're doing; plus, you haven't given ANY reason why, probably because you don't understand much about mapmaking.
calm down you two. a map is a map. you dont have to give up on anything. guardian dont tell others to give up and stuff until you make a map yourself and see how it feels.
kim, keep going with this. submit it to MotM if you want. Its come a long way. Why waste your efforts here?
|
On June 26 2012 10:00 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 09:51 kim9067 wrote:On June 25 2012 21:12 xTrim wrote:
I can imagine tanks on the high ground at the third (?) (which is blocked by the minerals) being a hell to clear up. Some sort of siege tank all in vs 1 rax CC can be devastating. You cannot hit the natural from the high ground. I understand it'll be difficult to clear up though. I guess if you see this coming you should clear the mineral fields? I haven't seen enough games to be sure, though. On June 25 2012 21:33 Guardian85 wrote:Less is more, one universal rule says: once something becomes to complicated, it has to be made simple. I understand you've put a lot of work into this. So i commend you for the great effort, but sometimes one have to give up that shiny idea, and look at it from a different perspective. Keep up the enthusiasm, and try again What? firstly, you're contradicting yourself, you said it has to be made simple, and then you said to give up... Doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think you're in a position to tell people to give up what they're doing; plus, you haven't given ANY reason why, probably because you don't understand much about mapmaking. calm down you two. a map is a map. you dont have to give up on anything. guardian dont tell others to give up and stuff until you make a map yourself and see how it feels. kim, keep going with this. submit it to MotM if you want. Its come a long way. Why waste your efforts here?
I totaly agree. I like this idea so much. It would be a waste if you'd let go.
|
On June 29 2012 12:16 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 10:00 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 26 2012 09:51 kim9067 wrote:On June 25 2012 21:12 xTrim wrote:
I can imagine tanks on the high ground at the third (?) (which is blocked by the minerals) being a hell to clear up. Some sort of siege tank all in vs 1 rax CC can be devastating. You cannot hit the natural from the high ground. I understand it'll be difficult to clear up though. I guess if you see this coming you should clear the mineral fields? I haven't seen enough games to be sure, though. On June 25 2012 21:33 Guardian85 wrote:Less is more, one universal rule says: once something becomes to complicated, it has to be made simple. I understand you've put a lot of work into this. So i commend you for the great effort, but sometimes one have to give up that shiny idea, and look at it from a different perspective. Keep up the enthusiasm, and try again What? firstly, you're contradicting yourself, you said it has to be made simple, and then you said to give up... Doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think you're in a position to tell people to give up what they're doing; plus, you haven't given ANY reason why, probably because you don't understand much about mapmaking. calm down you two. a map is a map. you dont have to give up on anything. guardian dont tell others to give up and stuff until you make a map yourself and see how it feels. kim, keep going with this. submit it to MotM if you want. Its come a long way. Why waste your efforts here? I totaly agree. I like this idea so much. It would be a waste if you'd let go.
Thanks, you gave me a confidence booster. I'm working on a few more changes, such as the airspace between the main and the naturals, which some spawns have more than others.
|
I'm coming off of a bad arm injury, otherwise I would try it out w/ friends and give some feedback.
|
This looks solid, Polish up the visuals and submit it to MotM when you can, I like it, and it looks competitive
|
On July 01 2012 10:24 Sjokola wrote:
I'm coming off of a bad arm injury, otherwise I would try it out w/ friends and give some feedback.
Thanks for giving me support on my map. I know it's very unconventional, so it may look like it's unplayable, but I want to try my best at it.
On July 01 2012 11:13 BluePanther wrote:
This looks solid, Polish up the visuals and submit it to MotM when you can, I like it, and it looks competitive
I don't know what to do with the visuals actually, hopefully a pro can help me out xP
|
Map Update:
-Equalized map boundary between main and natural
-Equalized natural size
-Equalized the central bases, the top and the bottom ones
-Fixed Starting positions so that they are all visible now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AHesT.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ec6UO.png)
