|
On June 27 2012 10:07 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 10:02 oOOoOphidian wrote:On June 27 2012 09:40 prodiG wrote:On June 27 2012 08:49 oOOoOphidian wrote:
Finally a map where blink/obs isn't stupidly powerful PvT.
I also love the 1 gas 3rd base. This map forces players to make decisions about what bases to take, without being unreasonably hard like Antiga.
I wouldn't worry about the ledge above the third, it looks like you can't drop units on it. You can drop units on it. This is fully intended - If you want a safe 3rd/4th expansion, you have to position your army aggressively and use things like static defense. Static defense against tanks up there/etc? Not sure how that helps. I think there should be a path up there to make it accessible for defense. It can basically force tech paths like zerg will need mutas etc. and that's never good for map design. If you're trying to say you have to 2 base all-in so that you can secure a 3rd against harassment, that's equally silly as players can play overall defensively while harassing that base. I don't like this feature at all, it's an otherwise good map. Why not design it more like Condemned Ridge's 3rd? That allows for strong strategies without being absurd. force you to tech differently and think of the bases you are going to take. as zerg, you might have to get mutas instead of destiny styled mass ling infestor. but zerg late game will need greater spire tech anyways. so why not? EDIT: basically, if you dont like the base, dont take it. be flexible about your options, and if you are a good player, you can position your army right to take those 4ths.
If people don't like the map, they won't play it. Designing maps to invalidate entire tech paths is bad design. This is actually a serious issue. Yes it's good to get variety in maps, but not at the cost of pidgeonholing races into doing one thing every single time. Antiga Shipyard is a bad map for similar reasons.
|
On June 27 2012 10:15 oOOoOphidian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 10:07 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 27 2012 10:02 oOOoOphidian wrote:On June 27 2012 09:40 prodiG wrote:On June 27 2012 08:49 oOOoOphidian wrote:
Finally a map where blink/obs isn't stupidly powerful PvT.
I also love the 1 gas 3rd base. This map forces players to make decisions about what bases to take, without being unreasonably hard like Antiga.
I wouldn't worry about the ledge above the third, it looks like you can't drop units on it. You can drop units on it. This is fully intended - If you want a safe 3rd/4th expansion, you have to position your army aggressively and use things like static defense. Static defense against tanks up there/etc? Not sure how that helps. I think there should be a path up there to make it accessible for defense. It can basically force tech paths like zerg will need mutas etc. and that's never good for map design. If you're trying to say you have to 2 base all-in so that you can secure a 3rd against harassment, that's equally silly as players can play overall defensively while harassing that base. I don't like this feature at all, it's an otherwise good map. Why not design it more like Condemned Ridge's 3rd? That allows for strong strategies without being absurd. force you to tech differently and think of the bases you are going to take. as zerg, you might have to get mutas instead of destiny styled mass ling infestor. but zerg late game will need greater spire tech anyways. so why not? EDIT: basically, if you dont like the base, dont take it. be flexible about your options, and if you are a good player, you can position your army right to take those 4ths. If people don't like the map, they won't play it. Designing maps to invalidate entire tech paths is bad design. This is actually a serious issue. Yes it's good to get variety in maps, but not at the cost of pidgeonholing races into doing one thing every single time. Antiga Shipyard is a bad map for similar reasons.
And you can establish all of this by looking at some pictures or do you have some replays to show me? Evidence to support your claims = I will make changes
|
On June 27 2012 10:15 oOOoOphidian wrote:
If people don't like the map, they won't play it. Designing maps to invalidate entire tech paths is bad design. This is actually a serious issue. Yes it's good to get variety in maps, but not at the cost of pidgeonholing races into doing one thing every single time. Antiga Shipyard is a bad map for similar reasons.
I don't see how Zerg's will be forced into Spire tech because of the ledge, that just seems like theorycrafting based off a first impression to me. A zerg can simply park an overlord nearby to get vision, and if they have any lair tech at all, they should be able to defend with their units. In fact, all 3 races should be able to adequately hold that base against harassment, provided they've teched up enough. I think that's actually rather clever. How this will actually hold up in real games, though, has yet to be seen.
However, I don't think it's a terrible idea to add a ramp. It might not be necessary though, and it might not be what you intend for the map, prodiG.
As to what I think about the map though, I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason I don't like it that much. The concept - having to push forward, and secure map control, is sound, but it just comes off as bland to me for some reason, perhaps uninspired. I hope for the sake of the map that it's more interesting/fun in-game. This is all my opinion though, as most everyone else seems to like it a lot. It just happens to look sorta like a handful of my own WIP's which I've scrapped, which doesn't sit quite right with me. If that doesn't make any sense to you, that's fine, I'm just expressing my view. Take it or leave it.
|
I like the map, you've done a really good job in my opinion.
As has already been said, you could make changes to open up options for Reaper play, but other than that, well done!
|
pretty sick map, but i feel like this map is so hard to take fourth for zerg..
|
As a Zerg player, I think I would veto this immediately. the main and natural are easy to defend (which is usually a bad thing since securing 2 bases is nice for the other races, but doesn't do much for zerg), the 3rd on the right has high ground behind it with no ramp making it impossible to secure and extremely easy to abuse with drops and/or tanks. You could choose to take the 3rd in front of your main, but the base is sitting right on the edge toward the middle of the map exposing your workers. Plus the 2 ramps coming from either side make it otherwise difficult to secure (The two ramps aren't that unusual though, so not really a big deal here).
I do kinda like the middle of the map though, kinda interesting. Might host some good games for non-zerg matchups (although admittedly, I'm no expert on those). I'm just saying as a zerg player, I'd probably have to veto it since I see way too many super-abusive opportunities that I wouldn't know how to deal with.
|
It's a great map, though I think it would be in best interest if it were CROSS ONLY. This is because a third of someone's can be VERY close to someone's main which is unfair.
|
Looks nice. I think you should push the thirds up to the fourth base high ground cliff instead of having a seperate cliff behind it. So have the mineral line up to the edge of the high ground. Keeps with the theme of having to control certain areas to do well. I don't think you need the destructible rocks in the middle. Otherwise, it looks good.
|
On June 27 2012 13:55 insaner wrote:
It's a great map, though I think it would be in best interest if it were CROSS ONLY. This is because a third of someone's can be VERY close to someone's main which is unfair.
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.
|
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 13:55 insaner wrote:
It's a great map, though I think it would be in best interest if it were CROSS ONLY. This is because a third of someone's can be VERY close to someone's main which is unfair. I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.
It's more than that actually, but you are correct in your hatred of it. 
|
It seems fundamentally skewed in favour of Terran. The way gas is restricted on the third base, means that Terrans, who use mineral based armies, will be at an advantage to gas based armies. Also, how the hell can you hold a fourth base to tank pressure? You won't mine, and it is a bit chokey so you can't exactly get them out of there easily.
I think tomorrow I am going to play many many TvTs and I think I will choose random non-tournament maps for a change. This seems good.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Im kinda concerned about taking third in PvT, the map is big but it seems any third that is dropped before thermal lance is done will just die to a single medivac drop, and after thermal lance, terran could just bring a few vikings with his drop/s and kill all of your workers if not your base if you took it there. The "other" third is waaaaaaaaay out on the map, and impossible to take before like the 11-12 minute mark for protoss, yet terran should be not only able to secure their mineral third (with the more powerful ranged units and "better" drops) but planetary the fourth as well, and it is completely unkillable unless protoss brings his entire army
|
This looks great. Looking forward to play testing and seeing what good players think. Nice work ProdiG! Thanks for your work!
|
If I might weigh in on the discussion over the cliff near the third, perhaps having both reduced income and the cliff to worry about are too much of a deterrent to taking that third. It doesn't really seem economic to have to invest the most in defending the base with the least return. Perhaps leaving it as a cliff-less low income base or an endangered normal income base would be enough of a threat to break the spell of too much passivity in getting up to 3 base play.
|
Working on v1.1 which will include a ramp up to the cliff that overlooks the third so that you can make expand and then defense it, as well as a small bridge from the 4th expansions to the mains for blink stalkers and reapers to use. You'll be able to put pylons/turrets/units/whatever on top of the cliff to deter incoming drops, as well as make for a neat place to put proxy pylons 
As for the comments in regards to the middle of the map, I'm not going to change anything (at least not yet). The idea of the map is to break up deathball armies and use positioning and tactics as opposed to "zomg i lost because i couldnt atack move 200 suply of roach thru a choek diz map is ass." I like the idea of being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and designed the Xel'Naga Towers to be a significant element in dealing with positioning. As with anything however, testing will tell. I'm open to the ideas of widening certain areas up or shrinking the high ground ramps a little bit, but I'm not going to do anything like that without looking at a handful of games.
|
I played TvT's with 2 different mid master terrans.
We don't like it.
http://drop.sc/209605
http://drop.sc/209604
http://drop.sc/209603
Points I hate:
- Main is too large. Too easy to get dropped on it.
- The mini third is stupid, impossible to hold the big third.
Points we all hate:
- FUCK ROCK TOWERS.
- The watchtowers are imbalanced, you can't take the logical third if your opponent gets a position on you. That position then becomes unbreakable without spending twice as much as him to combat.
- Why is there a cliff to the min third, it just deters even more from taking it.
Never got far enough because I kept dieing trying to attack or trying to take a FUCKING tower.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 29 2012 06:34 Thaniri wrote:I played TvT's with 2 different mid master terrans. We don't like it. http://drop.sc/209605http://drop.sc/209604http://drop.sc/209603Points I hate: - Main is too large. Too easy to get dropped on it. - The mini third is stupid, impossible to hold the big third. Points we all hate: - FUCK ROCK TOWERS. - The watchtowers are imbalanced, you can't take the logical third if your opponent gets a position on you. That position then becomes unbreakable without spending twice as much as him to combat. - Why is there a cliff to the min third, it just deters even more from taking it. Never got far enough because I kept dieing trying to attack or trying to take a FUCKING tower. + Show Spoiler +
Chill out, man. I'll check the reps. Thanks for posting these.
|
On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design.
I think this map needs a band-aid
Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg
|
On June 29 2012 07:48 Broodie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design. I think this map needs a band-aid Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg
I don't like enforcing cross positions, and I don't think it is necessary on this map. However I will say that if your map is going to be bad 75% of the time instead of 0%, it makes sense to do the 0% by enforcing cross spawns. But ultimately it is better to just redesign the map as a 2p map or a working 4p map with no space restrictions.
|
On June 29 2012 08:19 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 07:48 Broodie wrote:On June 27 2012 14:01 prodiG wrote:
I will never, ever make a map cross only. Cross only is a bad bandaid solution to shitty map design. I think this map needs a band-aid Thinking cross only is stupid is in itself pretty stupid... Especially with 4 spawn maps, it's an element of the editor and it can broaden your maps ability to be played on, use it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I would play this map enforced cross, but not in the state it's in now. gg I don't like enforcing cross positions, and I don't think it is necessary on this map. However I will say that if your map is going to be bad 75% of the time instead of 0%, it makes sense to do the 0% by enforcing cross spawns. But ultimately it is better to just redesign the map as a 2p map or a working 4p map with no space restrictions.
There's also something to be said for designing a map knowing full well it will need spawn restrictions. Metropolis was specifically designed this way, and it's something we almost never do. Like I said, forcing spawns is not just about bad design, it can also be an element of good design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
