EPTYou can find and test the map by going to costum game and search for its exact name there.
If there are people who prefer the map on the arcade, please let me know how to publish something in the arcade
Enjoy.
[M] (2) Yog's Winter - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
You can find and test the map by going to costum game and search for its exact name there. If there are people who prefer the map on the arcade, please let me know how to publish something in the arcade Enjoy. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I think opening things up any more is dangerous because it already has a lot of attack paths. A map can have a lot of attack paths OR be really open, not both. It's too zerg-friendly otherwise (that's my opinion, anyway). I think the map overview is a bit deceiving in this regard as well. Some of the ramps and pathways look smaller than they actually are because of how the texturing is done. + Show Spoiler + I keep a few maps that are generally accepted as being balanced on file so I don't have to log in to look at them. Good for benchmarks/making sure your map isn't so crazy that people are scared of it (the mistake I made on my first handful of maps). The average ramp size (not counting main ramps) on Ohana is 3. The average ramp size (at least before I added the two new 1FF ramps to the 4ths, which hardly count) on Yog's is 3.16. Obviously Ohana is more open in other ways, but it shows that the map isn't completely chokey. Same as before, if enough people agree that it's chokey I can make some changes. I do think I will reduce the size of the chasms near the 5 / 11 oclock bases since the addition of the 1FF ramps there narrowed that passage slightly, which was an unintended consequence. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
I greatly enjoyed playing on this map. It's expansion placement encourages late game play while its size allows for a lot of neat early game pressure. Good luck polishing the map and be sure to send me updated versions for [EU]. Encourage Drop Play The doodads in the corner of the mains discourage drop play into the main, give a little room there for sneaky drops to increase the map's skillcap and discourage passive play. The natural seems to be vulnerable to drop play already, which is fine. Rocks The purpose of the rocks at the 3 and 9 clock locations (from the natural ramp towards the small canyon then up to the center of the map) is unknown to me. Are they for offensive purposes? Defensive? They seem to be there just for show now and don't really narrow the ramp. The Garage doodad at the fifth is not needed (rock with 600 hp, it isn't even a gold expansion). The fifth is already hard to take and the only reason this map doesn't need to end up in a split manner. Discourage the split map by making the base accessible by removing that 'rock'. Next to that, the garage model is very ugly in this beautiful alien x-mas terrain, it doesn't blend in at all. Defensive Position Going on about the natural ramp into that small canyon. This gives the defender a very good position to protect his natural. The two ramps create a decent choke that seems to be easy to abuse with forcefields and hard to attack. This is slightly compensated by the open third, which offers another attack path. However, even if the rocks are broken down (from the third to the natural) the defender can still shoot from up his main and hit everything that passes. Siege tanks placed at the main ramp will be able to cover the natural and the third to natural attack path in this manner. This overly turtely nature seems a bit overdone, but I don't see it being a problem right now because the map motivates macro play beyond 4 bases anyway. This position feels slightly like Cloud Kingdom, with the third closer to the main while the third ramp is further away. Vision Coverage The XNWTs cover most of the attack paths, but there are still some sneaky routes around them (through the fifth). However, I feel that for the size of your map, a single watch tower in the center would suffice, right now it is too easy to see most of the map while it would demand higher player skill to cover map vision with overlords and observers e.a. Aesthetics The map's art is very well done. There are only two inconsistencies. The garage (as I said before) doesn't fit into the terrain at all (next to not being functional). Secondly, the water surrounding the map makes the map feel warmer than it should be. If it truly is winter, there should be no water (because ice is missing in the editor right now), to add to the cold feeling of this map. The small alien plants with blue orbs on them make this map feel like christmas on the moon. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Those are some really good points. I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said. + Show Spoiler + @ the garage I don't know how to make rocks only 600 hp but I could try to find out (or some wise person could inform me). Although it sounds like you think it should go away completely. Do you think the mechanical doodads on the sides of that base also look bad? @ the xel'naga tower - I can remove the dead marine and his crashed helicopter from the middle and put the XNT there. I was afraid that the XNT would be useless there and not be able to see anything, but it can actually see about 2/3 of the paths to the north and south, which is perfect for detecting large armies going by but having the possibility of a few units to "wall it" and sneak by. So I think that works. @ the rocks at the 3 and 9 oclock. I think I mentioned them somewhere but maybe not. Basically the attacker can kill them if he wants to be able to have the ability to cover the entire width of the nat-to-third passage with a sieged tank on the highground (as the rocks cover the -only- spot that can do that). A bit of an unnecessary flourish, maybe. | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On August 21 2012 19:45 Fatam wrote: @ the garage I don't know how to make rocks only 600 hp but I could try to find out (or some wise person could inform me). Although it sounds like you think it should go away completely. Do you think the mechanical doodads on the sides of that base also look bad? No, these doodads look fine, the garage is just out of place. And yes, I don't think rocks are needed on the fifth base at all. Without that base the map is very split, which may motivate games that become too long and too boring to spectate. The rocks make the base less easy to take. I also believe rocks are at 1500 hp for a good reason, they are there to prevent it to be taken early game (like a too easy to defend gold base or an island for Terran). Making rocks 600 hp at a late game base just seems totally unneccesary. On August 21 2012 19:45 Fatam wrote:@ the xel'naga tower - I can remove the dead marine and his crashed helicopter from the middle and put the XNT there. I was afraid that the XNT would be useless there and not be able to see anything, but it can actually see about 2/3 of the paths to the north and south, which is perfect for detecting large armies going by but having the possibility of a few units to "wall it" and sneak by. So I think that works. Yep, go for that. On August 21 2012 19:45 Fatam wrote:@ the rocks at the 3 and 9 oclock. I think I mentioned them somewhere but maybe not. Basically the attacker can kill them if he wants to be able to have the ability to cover the entire width of the nat-to-third passage with a sieged tank on the highground (as the rocks cover the -only- spot that can do that). A bit of an unnecessary flourish, maybe. The problem is that a sieged up tank at that very spot doesn't really make the attacker's position any better. In fact, because the rocks are tilted slightly towards the middle, a sieged up tank wouldnt be able to hit anything at the natural. Those rocks may as well not be there (or they should be a cool looking doodad). | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I threw a few experimental LOS doodads in, thought it could make for some interesting micro situations. I got the idea when I removed those XNTs but thought that LOS blockers could still be cool in that area. The LOS around the XNT in the middle is also not a full circle - could make for some slightly different stalker vs marine micro battles early on. + Show Spoiler + Normally the stalker gets shut down by the handful of marines if they are at a XNT b/c of the LOS blocker. But here, if the P wants to use some APM he can walk the stalker to the left or right where the LOS doesn't cover the watchtower and try to outrange and pick off marines. The terran will then have to walk to the other side of the LOS to protect the marines or bait the stalker to follow, the stalker might try to go around and continue to outrange them, etc. etc. Thought it could be fun. The LOS blockers to the N and S allow for ambushes and other cool stuff. I might pretty them up a bit as right now they are looking a little too straight. But that can be fixed. Let me know what you guys think. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/f5mz6.jpg) | ||
|
Jebediah
Germany106 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On August 22 2012 00:53 Jebediah wrote: I can't find the map on EU, tried the full name and variations of it in both the Starcraft and the Arcade Section. Did you try under 'costum game'? In the search function it displays as the only result for Yog's Winter to me. @ fatam: looks a lot better :3 | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On August 30 2012 05:28 Fatam wrote: So apparently http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361924 is using community maps in their tournaments and this one got chosen for the upcoming one. Woo :-) Nice man. This is way better than the first version you posted. ^^ I still can't let go of the idea of rocks on the NW and SE ramps to the central platform. It makes a long rush distance but it makes the option of opening your own rocks a lot more interesting, kind of like Blistering Sands but not godawful. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I like your idea of rocks there (I think rocks are great, if the SC2 world was my oyster then ladder maps would absolutely have more rocks.. they really can add a lot of strategical depth to the game) but other people generally hate rocks so I'm realizing I can't have very many :-\ The maps are for other people to enjoy so I have to cater. I will enjoy the mapmaking process regardless. | ||
|
Pax
United States175 Posts
On August 30 2012 06:45 Fatam wrote: Yeah I think it has improved. Feedback ftw. I like your idea of rocks there (I think rocks are great, if the SC2 world was my oyster then ladder maps would absolutely have more rocks.. they really can add a lot of strategical depth to the game) but other people generally hate rocks so I'm realizing I can't have very many :-\ The maps are for other people to enjoy so I have to cater. I will enjoy the mapmaking process regardless. I don't think anyone can really complain about path-blocking rocks (so long as they don't make a back door to your main). When the rocks are at expos, though, then people take issue. It's a really lazy way of trying to slow down expos, as you are imposing an arbitrary restriction on how fast power-econ strats can come online, rather than using the terrain to make taking that expo really early riskier, and out-right killing push-while-expanding strats by forcing units to destroy the rocks rather than attack. As for this map, I'm really loving the bleak, nuclear winter look you have going on. The sparseness of doodads is a welcome change from the flying shark infested GSL maps. Balance-wise though, I'm concerned that the shape and size of the central pod causes too much constriction, making space controlling/choke dependent strategies too strong. While I like maps that occasionally favor either choke (Marine tank, sentry colossus, broodlord infestor) or surround/open ground (Marine marauder, Zealot archon, anything zerg does in the early to mid game) strats over the other, I think that there should always be a bit of wiggle room for the less favored one with smart play, and I just don't see how an open ground strat can engage anywhere, especially when the center expansions are taken. I think you would see a lot more variety in army composition and more dynamic play during the late mid-game (and onwards) if that high ground was shrunk a bit in all dimensions. That being said, though, I'm liking that the thirds are relatively isolated, which will hopefully encourage more early-mid game aggression. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QYqSu.jpg) (I put trees,etc. on the raised parts in the middle to make it clear that those are not passable) | ||
|
Pax
United States175 Posts
I could forsee some interesting games being played on it. Will they be judging this latest version, or the one you originally submitted? | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Looks a lot better now. I could forsee some interesting games being played on it. Will they be judging this latest version, or the one you originally submitted? Hmm, I don't know if we're allowed to edit a map after the deadline, so I suppose the current version (and I haven't actually uploaded the above version as a new version, it's just a possible change). Maybe I'll ask, though. The third base seems extremely difficult to secure with all those attack paths, especially with all that high ground near by making seige tanks extremely effective. It's somewhere between hard to hold and medium. There are maps w/ harder thirds, but it isn't an easy third. The choke width on the outside edge of the third is a super standard width (same as Daybreak and some others), and tanks aren't as much of an issue as you'd think, because tanks on that highground don't really cover all of that passageway, only part of it. Also consider that if you have an attacking force that is trying to come down that ramp (from the highground) towards the nat or up/down towards the third, the defending player sitting on his natural ramp will have the highground advantage. So either the attacker deals with that, or he goes around, in which case it's just like a normal third. --------- edit - updated to the new middle | ||
| ||
