| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oZwHc.jpg) Nat to Nat (Close positions) ~ 40 secs Nat to Nat (Cross positions) ~ 50 secs Nat to Nat (Close positions once rocks are down) ~ 37 secs Old version + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ECVrf.jpg) Published on NA in custom maps Playable Map Bounds: 150 x 150 Screenshots + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nReST.jpg) Main ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i6SVk.jpg) Natural ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7snX3.jpg) Third ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MWehE.jpg) Outside Natural ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/000LY.jpg) Fourth ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NiwBY.jpg) Middle Feedback welcome. My map portfolio: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=352620 | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
 I think it more like a mix of Antiga and Condemned ridge at close by air position, because of the one entrance 3rd, and way the 4th is, except it is not in the middle.Can you give teh analyzer for rush distance? would be more useful then only having the openness. Overall the map seem cool, I don't really like the watch towers covering every path to your base, but that is your choice. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On June 30 2012 10:26 moskonia wrote: Overall the map seem cool, I don't really like the watch towers covering every path to your base, but that is your choice. I'm hoping it will encourage small skirmishes to get control of them. On June 30 2012 10:26 moskonia wrote: Can you give teh analyzer for rush distance? would be more useful then only having the openness. It's about 120 for close and 145 for cross. | ||
|
PandaZerg
Canada148 Posts
| ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On June 30 2012 10:33 PandaZerg wrote: why so many rocks? I wanted to make it a semi-island. After that it was probably a too safe first expansion for Terran. I am open to leaving them off of the town hall location. Would need to see. | ||
|
Inside.Out
Canada569 Posts
| ||
|
Infidler
Norway49 Posts
although imo i think that you need to do something about those Nagas, and i see you really do like rocks  | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10247 Posts
also wtf rocks. dustin browder was here. solid map, cant really say much about the 3rd, other than the fact that say someone spawns bottom and someone spawn left, then left will have advantage because they will have a closer drop to the 3rd. watch out for that minor imbalance. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
http://teamcrux.tistory.com/89 But all things considered, it's a solid map from you, and I think it's a step forward. The map is nothing unique, but it's a simple, solid map, albeit with a LOT of rocks. I'd drop the ones blocking the expansion. Keep it up though! | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On June 30 2012 12:44 NewSunshine wrote: I'd drop the ones blocking the expansion. Keep it up though! I agree. Done. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10247 Posts
| ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On June 30 2012 13:19 FlaShFTW wrote: take out one set of rocks at the middle base because terran lift can be a bit powerful. We don't need to get into that discussion again. You and I know where we stand on this issue from my other thread. | ||
|
Guardian85
162 Posts
The feel i get is that your spawning side by side with the enemy, like one on each side of a fence, who ever gets the hounds loose first, is the one walking home. But maybe im wrong, its anyways the way it feels. If it releases in EU, i might test it. EDIT: I dont wish to sound negative, and im trying to improve on that.. As people might know its easy to leave behind comments on whats "wrong" with a map, its important to remember mentioning whats good as well. On account of that, i'd like to mention that your spacing, in terms of how much space, versus too much space, is looking excellent. The shape of the map layout is great, but might be a little to Close to each other for my own personal taste. Your middle is clean, simple but very inviting.. though i dont think 4 XNT, will be the best choice. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On June 30 2012 13:20 MarcusRife wrote: We don't need to get into that discussion again. You and I know where we stand on this issue from my other thread. No, don't take out those rocks, otherwise the middle expos suck. The semi-islands are frickin awesome and they have to be this way for the position balance to work- if you removed any set of rocks, the expansions would become very vulnerable and hard to defend. The thing that makes them viable is that you can break 1 set of rocks or none and have it be very safe for you to hold, regardless of the position. If anything, the solution would be to remove the ramp that the diagonal rocks are on so that it's even less vulnerable. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On June 30 2012 14:54 Guardian85 wrote: If it releases in EU, i might test it. Anybody want to host it on EU so the EU buddies can test it? On June 30 2012 14:54 Guardian85 wrote: Your middle is clean, simple but very inviting.. though i dont think 4 XNT, will be the best choice. Do you suggest having no towers? | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On June 30 2012 10:26 moskonia wrote: Ohana? I think it more like a mix of Antiga and Condemned ridgeHe means this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IN02S.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KKgw0.jpg) | ||
|
Guardian85
162 Posts
On July 01 2012 04:47 MarcusRife wrote: Anybody want to host it on EU so the EU buddies can test it? Do you suggest having no towers? It might not be a problem, but i think 37% coverage, is a lot, for the map.. but since theres 4, its still hard to mapcontrol all of that. Yes either keep it as it is, or remove them all. Its a hard call, and im guessing only testing it would be the way to know. | ||
|
CamoPillbox
Czech Republic229 Posts
| ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On July 01 2012 01:53 monitor wrote: No, don't take out those rocks, otherwise the middle expos suck. The semi-islands are frickin awesome and they have to be this way for the position balance to work- if you removed any set of rocks, the expansions would become very vulnerable and hard to defend. The thing that makes them viable is that you can break 1 set of rocks or none and have it be very safe for you to hold, regardless of the position. If anything, the solution would be to remove the ramp that the diagonal rocks are on so that it's even less vulnerable. I liked monitor's suggestion so I went ahead and took out the large ramps in the middle. Also made some aesthetic updates. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On July 02 2012 06:29 MarcusRife wrote: I liked monitor's suggestion so I went ahead and took out the large ramps in the middle. Also made some aesthetic updates. Glad you liked it but I was just kind of spouting words haha... I like the change nonetheless. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
| ||
|
Peanutbutter717
United States240 Posts
Also I hope its cross spawn only, any other combo of starting locations gives one player an expansion advantage. Nerazim Crypt had that problem. I would say this map is very much like Nerazim Crypt, the differences being the semi-island expos, and the 4 watchtowers were highgrounds and there was no dead space in the middle. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States998 Posts
| ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On November 02 2012 06:22 EatThePath wrote: Now terran can PF the 4th towards a ccw zerg spawn, and without the wide middle-facing ramp, zerg can't hardly do anything about it. Then it's literally one siege tank radius to the zerg's 3rd. The intention was that when Zerg spawns ccw they don't take the cw base as their third. They take the ccw third. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 02 2012 06:40 MarcusRife wrote: The intention was that when Zerg spawns ccw they don't take the cw base as their third. They take the ccw third. Well then, two tank radii to cutting off the 3rd from the natural and killing either. It just looks broken in the same way but much more severe that XNC was broken, at least for those spawns. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I think the close thirds are a bit too close, though, and open. Seems like you'll just easily secure it if you have a big enough army, and never secure it with a smaller army. Seems like that makes the skill required to take a third very simple, only about army size, not much positioning or other things. I do really like the addition of those paths though. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On November 02 2012 08:03 Gfire wrote: I think it'll be way to hard to see stuff in those little corridors behind the double-high cliffs of the mains in some positions. I do like them, though. I wonder if you could get away with pushing the minerals on the high ground middle bases back against the edge some. Or rather, cut away some of the terrain behind them and then get rid of some of the terrain on the far side of the little path so it remains the same size, but a bit away from the main so you don't have vision issues either. That would improve this map for me. Good point. I created some space between the path and the main so that there are no vision issues. The entirety of the paths are now visible. On November 02 2012 08:03 Gfire wrote: I think the close thirds are a bit too close, though, and open. Seems like you'll just easily secure it if you have a big enough army, and never secure it with a smaller army. Seems like that makes the skill required to take a third very simple, only about army size, not much positioning or other things. I do really like the addition of those paths though. I'm not sure what I can do about that. If there are any suggestions I would like to hear them. Hopefully the other interesting features of the map compensate for the dullness of the part you describe. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
On November 02 2012 08:03 Gfire wrote: I think the close thirds are a bit too close, though, and open. Seems like you'll just easily secure it if you have a big enough army, and never secure it with a smaller army. Seems like that makes the skill required to take a third very simple, only about army size, not much positioning or other things. I thought about this some more and decided to move the third around a little and I created a area in the natural that helps you control the third area with siege tanks or collosi or whatever else. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On November 04 2012 04:39 MarcusRife wrote: I thought about this some more and decided to move the third around a little and I created a area in the natural that helps you control the third area with siege tanks or collosi or whatever else. Ooh, looks cool. It gives it a bit of flavor, don't you think? Feels a little different from other maps now. Not quite like anything else, so I think it would be worth playing on like this. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Solar vs Creator
ByuN vs Gerald
Percival vs Babymarine
Moja vs Krystianer
EnDerr vs ForJumy
sebesdes vs Nicoract
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV 2025
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs KameZerg
BSL 21
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
Tarson vs Dandy
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
StarCraft2.fi
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
