|
Unlike WarCraft III, for some reason the editor only supports 8 textures in your blend and 3 cliff levels in total, I have no idea why because in WarCraft III it was infinite.
Uhm maybe im stepping on someones toes here.. but.. from my knowledge, you can make a total of 5 cliff levels, depending on what level cliff you choose to start building from.
I believe each cliff type can contain only 4, and the lowest one (at least on existing cliff types) is impassable.
Ok allow me to correct my self, there are only 4 different cliff "levels", but there are a total of 5 different cliff heights.
And the lowest cliff "level" can still be passable using the Green layer, on pathing.
Painted pathing -> Add pathing -> Ground
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XnGK8.jpg)
And my apologies to Superouman, for having this discussion in his thread.
|
If you're not connecting the high ground then I think you should at least open up the lowground bridge a bit more or add a secondary path. Otherwise, there's just too few attack paths between the bases.
|
Hey Superouman, I just played your map a couple of times and I just have a few concerns/comments about the map.
-Is this zigzag areas behind the minerals in the main and third susceptible to a cannon rush like the cannon rush spot on Daybreak? I didn't actually try it, but I was just curious about it.
-I do feel that there needs to be at least a couple of watchtowers on the map, and I was thinking the best place to do that would be in the middle of the small bridges. But you would need to make the bridge bigger, but you could have tower in the middle and allow 2 small units (such as zealots or lings) to be able to use it as a choke. I believe that this would allow for better reactions to army movement towards the thirds and across the middle, and really reward players for having map control, while also allowing players to be sneaky and move around using the corner expos.
-I played my Terran friend, and afterwards we were talking about the map, and he brought up the point that mutas ZvT would be hard to defend as T because the area in the main is too long, and you would need alot of missile turrets to defend production buildings on that side. Would building all of your production facilities on the side of your main closest to your natural be a valid idea, or should the main be made just a bit smaller? Plus I feel that there are too many places to sneak a probe for cannons/proxy 2 gate/4g in the base, with such a large main.
Thanks for making a good map, and if you need/want the replays of my games (2), let me know! =)
|
Could you explain why there is always an awesome place to put overlords and let zergs watch the natural all day?
Preach.
|
On July 14 2012 08:39 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +Could you explain why there is always an awesome place to put overlords and let zergs watch the natural all day? Preach.
Overlords spots have been standard in BW and most of the SC2 mapmakers try to include them in the maps too. Mostly because they encourage scouting and make the game easier to win if you're a better player. However with the recent changes, I know a lot of Terrans have been complaining that it makes pressure even more impossible than balance already makes it... so maybe something worth investigating.
|
On July 15 2012 07:23 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 08:39 Fatam wrote:Could you explain why there is always an awesome place to put overlords and let zergs watch the natural all day? Preach. Overlords spots have been standard in BW and most of the SC2 mapmakers try to include them in the maps too. Mostly because they encourage scouting and make the game easier to win if you're a better player. However with the recent changes, I know a lot of Terrans have been complaining that it makes pressure even more impossible than balance already makes it... so maybe something worth investigating.
I don't think this (changing the standard) is valid quite yet. Terran have shown in the past that they can hunt those early Ovies very easily and take them out. Watching a lot of games of terrans, you rarely see that anymore. It was popular for a few minutes when Daybreak and a couple other maps came out, but now it has seemingly disappeared. The terrans would either lift a building for a minute, have early marines in place before it gets there, or use a scan. I know it is not optimal, but that is part of the point of the game, to prevent your opponent from playing optimally. Now they just let them sit there and don't even seem to try to shoot them down. Once Starport tech is out though, then it should never be a concern I feel.
|
It's a lot stronger vs. protoss than terran. Seeing gas timings/ how many gases at natural tells the zerg a ton. Also some maps (like daybreak iirc) have a highground spot inbetween both exits outside the natural.. if a probe goes by that overlord it's like oh gee I wonder if he's about to be aggressive? I get that daybreak is an older map but ever since the overlord+queen buff zergs really really don't need this.. and newer maps should probably reflect that. Then again that's just my opinion 
|
I've been obsessing over something ever since you made this map... HOW DID YOU MAKE THOSE SYMBOLS???
|
On July 27 2012 09:45 ChaosRefined wrote:
I've been obsessing over something ever since you made this map... HOW DID YOU MAKE THOSE SYMBOLS???
Just decals, variations 3 and 4 with different sizes and then paint the inside with korhal dark concrete
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I yeah I forgot to tell you I played some games on it. The super large mains are pretty annoying vs drop play as it costs so much to defend from it properly. Also the close by ground spawn is a bit tricky to play as well. Skype me for reps
|
On July 27 2012 16:21 Superouman wrote:
Just decals, variations 3 and 4 with different sizes and then paint the inside with korhal dark concrete
Decals? Sorry, I kind of suck at aesthetics..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
