[M] (2) Ulaan Winter

Post a Reply

GDR

Canada407 Posts

July 09 2012 04:59 GMT

Ulaan Winter by GDR

Published to [NA]

Version 2.0

+ Show Spoiler [Version 1.0] +

Angled:
+ Show Spoiler [Version 2.0] +

+ Show Spoiler [Version 1.0] +

Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler [Version 2.0] +

+ Show Spoiler [Version 1.0] +

Analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler [Version 2.0] +

+ Show Spoiler [Version 1.0] +

Details

Suffer the harsh winter of the formerly Xel'naga inhabited moon.

I think the mains are too small (again). I'm going to claim it as a intentional design, and just say I love 2 base all-ins! Rush distances are maybe short? I don't really know what an ideal distance is.

I'm also looking at possibly adding a 11th/12th base.

All of the rocks around the edges are actually retextured to have an icey/snow appearance as seen in the banner. If you want to get a good idea I'd suggest opening the map up. I really wanted to focus on asthetics this go around, and there might be still some more to come out of me in that regard.

Map: Ulaan Winter
Players: 2
Playable Size: 142x144
Bases: 12
Towers: 2
Lighting: Ulnar (not Ulaan)

Textures:
+ Show Spoiler +

Changes:
+ Show Spoiler +

Moved third mineral patches, and ramp closer to natural.
Added new bases.
New path (with rocks) from middle-expo to potential sixth.
Expanded 'secret' hallway.
Made some ramps larger.
Other changes.

FlaShFTW

United States10154 Posts

July 09 2012 05:07 GMT

third seems too far and too hard to hold (yep, its me. person who fusses about thirds the most... hi nice to meet you).

feel that the map doesnt need XNT, especially where they are placed. they watch the only 2 paths to either side of the map. so either add a couple more pathways, or remove the towers.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

July 09 2012 05:08 GMT

The options for a 3rd are a little scary, because the center third is vulnerable to high ground siege pushes, and the high ground 3rd is like Sanshorn Mist: far away and easily able to cut off. You might think that for zerg players the open center with a watch tower makes up for having to risk losing a base so easily, but when a strong push is coming in, zergs tend to retreat and regroup. This gives terran and protoss (especially) the open door to completely cut off the high ground 3rd.

If I have to give one piece of feedback, it would be to make the 3rd ramp closer to the natural. Where and how? That's up to you, but that's my only beef with this.

Also why the man-made gas geysers?

monitor

United States2404 Posts

July 09 2012 05:09 GMT

I like the idea for the middle a lot, but I'm concerned that its going to have some "Daybreak syndrome" where you've got 5 bases but only 2 small attack paths. On this map it might make for some turtling games, except that the fifth (or sixth depending on how players expand) is vulnerable to air harassment. I think if you want to discourage the split-map scenarios, the best solution is to add extra side paths in the middle. It might be possibly to fit them in without changing much, but more than likely you'll have to move things around. I suggest either removing the sixth base and connecting that area to the middle expos, or you could move the mains to the opposite corners and work from there.. but that might be a lot of work. Now that I think about, would a path from the middle expo to the sixth blocked by rocks work?

[edit] I agree with Ironman's suggestion about the third. And I will also raise him (poker terms ftw) that you might want to add an extra ramp from the third so the space next to the "artosis path" isn't so useless.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

July 09 2012 05:15 GMT

I have one more critique, and I feel it's incredibly crucial as this may help with your mapmaking mindset.

[image loading]

Look at everything in the red circles, and think about the late game. Imagine 200/200 armies in those areas.

Will Zerg be good in those areas?
How powerful will siege units be?
How powerful will forcefields be?
How powerful will fungals be on all those chokes?
Will Zerglings be able to surround in those areas?
Can Bio potentially split against ling/bling in those areas?

Perhaps widen the high ground ridges so Zerg might have a change (think Cloud Kingdom)

So basically if this was my map and I were to fix that whole area it would look something like this

[image loading]

• The red lines indicate the new structure of the high ground ridge (also ramp placement)
• The black gap is just dead, open air space
• YELLOW and Green dots are new mineral placement

GDR

Canada407 Posts

July 09 2012 05:35 GMT

Are you two competing for my heart? Who can give the most feedback?

I like the idea of the middle-expo to 6th-expo connection I'll get on that, probably last, because I want to get the bigger changes out of the way first. I'll widen the secret hallway, add an extra ramp, and move the third closer to the natural.

The only thing I have reservations about right now when talking about the hallway is I want to keep the LOS blockers. I might just remove the ones in the middle, and keep a choke with LOS into the third.

I'll revisit the watch towers once the other path(s) are added.

For now though I think I'll watch a little bit of TV, and think how to go about it all. I did this all last night and a good portion of today (I wasted most of my time trying to retexture trees

). I think I should step away for a bit, haha.

Edit: Oh, thanks for the extra image there Ironman. Would you prefer all deadspace or an extra ramp? I think another ramp could make engagments a bit more dynamic. I'd probably still kill some of the ground in exchange for deadspace.

IronManSC

United States2119 Posts

July 09 2012 05:42 GMT

On July 09 2012 14:35 GDR wrote:
Edit: Oh, thanks for the extra image there Ironman. Would you prefer all deadspace or an extra ramp? I think another ramp could make engagments a bit more dynamic. I'd probably still kill some of the ground in exchange for deadspace.

Depends. You have three options.

1) Keep dead space there, all is fair in love and war.

2) Add a ramp there (consider its purpose. Would it be used for flanking?). Also consider that it's in an area where major engagements are least likely to happen, so would adding a extra ramp be necessary?

3) Add a base there (Cloud Kingdom 3rd/4th concept). Not a bad thing to add, but it's manageable.

It's your choice.

GDR

Canada407 Posts

July 09 2012 06:07 GMT

On July 09 2012 14:42 IronManSC wrote:

Show nested quote +

Okay, okay. I'm going to fiddle around and probably try them all. I actually like the idea of an extra base. I feel like it might become a free expansion if you are able secure 4 bases (main/natural/middle-expo/third + free base) though.

However, the abillity to harass it from the highground might prove to balance it out. Making the hallway more traversed, and thus more of a point of contention.

I actually missed this part in your first respone. The man-made geysers are actually an oversight, from when I was still unsure of the maps asthetics, that I never got around to changing.

GDR

Canada407 Posts

July 09 2012 09:34 GMT

I updated it. I put a full list of changes at the bottom of the OP.

I'm going to try retexturing the destructible rocks some other time, and maybe do some other things. Right now I'm just debating about entering into Proam.

Not sure if I moved the third close enough. I don't really know if I can move it closer or you will be able to siege the gas on the natural though.

PandaZerg

Canada148 Posts

July 09 2012 17:26 GMT

#10

looks pretty solid!

I would personally modify this on both side:
+ Show Spoiler +

sorrowptoss

Canada1431 Posts

July 09 2012 19:00 GMT

#11

I like it, it looks real nice.

But about those huge open spaces in front of the natural and the third base... Wouldn't it be extremely hard to secure a 4th expansion, especially for, say, protoss, since protoss usually manages to defend attacks better through chokes, or generally smaller areas? The openness is very good for surrounds and/or huge flanking movements in my opinion. So, my suggestion would be to somehow make the area slightly more narrow, and only slightly, because keeping it open in front of the 3rd, like in Ohana LE, allows Zerg to put a lot of pressure.

Also, as mentionned by IronmanSC above, you might want to widen those thin strips of land around the sides to allow for variety in micro.

GDR

Canada407 Posts

July 09 2012 22:52 GMT

#12

My map doesn't get as many replies as others. D:

I'll move the middle-expo(s) mineral lines in the next version. Going to try, and get the one so it doesn't impede the new 'backdoor', and also out of siege distance of the high ground. The other one I'll just move it so you can walk easily behind.

Enlarging the high ground strip I'm not sure about. It feels pretty big to me in game, and I've already increased the size once by a reasonable amount. Also, I made the ramp larger.

What I want to do is try, and encourage the middle-expo as a potential third for a Zerg player. So right now I plan to move it a little closer to the natural, and out of siege distance of the high ground. I think the openness of the middle-expo will give Zerg players more room to maneuver, and defend. I don't really want to change that.

Simply, I would like to encourage Protoss, and Terran to expand to the high ground third. While Zerg expands to the middle-expo.

GDR

Canada407 Posts

July 11 2012 00:11 GMT

#13

I wanted to try the invisible cliff trick for bridges. So I turned the 'backdoor' into a bridge of sorts. Retextured the rock archways, and various rocks to match the Ulaan cliff and voila!

Tell me if I should actually add it into the map. ^^

Please or register to reply.

[M] (2) Ulaan Winter

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming