EPT[M] (2) Yog's Winter - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Nat-nat is uncomfortably short once the rocks are broken. Fifth base is either against the opponent's main or its too close to the opponent's fourth. Would be fantastic with a viable fifth base and I like the concept a lot, but it feels like it's missing an expo. Monitor's complaints are probably accurate. Even if it could be executed a lot better I want to encourage other mappers to make similar maps. I saw where they were coming from about the 5th being too close to the opponent's 4th, so I got rid of the 1 FF ramp at the 4th (should completely solve the problem). I lowered the middle and made the shortest rush distance ramps only 1 FF each. The rocks-down rush distance was slightly increased when I did this, and if you go that way you're going up a 1 FF ramp near your opponent which is extremely dangerous. Problem solved. I haven't added any bases at this time. Maybe if I extended the map bounds vertically and did a LOT of restructuring I could make something happen, but I didn't want to do anything yet because the "needs another expo" comment really confused me and seemed a tad illogical/hypocritical when put into context. One of the winning maps has only 4.5 land bases per side, while this map has 5. -Maybe- he meant that this map should have an extra base because the 5th is hard to hold, and if the 5th was easier to hold then it wouldn't need a 6th base. Fair enough, but then consider how hard it can be to successfully mine off an island expo (which is what that winning map has to add to its 4.5 land bases per side) and that logic really falls flat. (or if it's just the "all maps must have at least 6 bases per side" idea that a lot of people have, then that is also crap) Anyhow, criticism of criticisms aside, I think some of what they said made sense and here is the result. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JiDKN.jpg) Thanks for looking + let me know if it's an improvement. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
DontNerfInfestors
Spain280 Posts
| ||
|
DontNerfInfestors
Spain280 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
the 11 and 5 oclock bases are 4ths | ||
|
titanicnewbie
63 Posts
I can just see a terran placing a bunch of siege tanks just at the top of the ramp into the middle and cutting off the third, while still maintaining a high-ground advantage. Placing a watchtower would give vision onto the high ground and help with drops coming in to the natural, but it wouldn't reduce the chokey-ness of the area. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
For instance, Mvp was able to beat vortix recently because Ohana has 5 bases instead of 6, and the 5th base is hard to hold (very much like on this map), so vortix knew he had to attack (explanation: he was going through money faster than Mvp because his zerg army wasn't being as cost-effective as Mvp's mech, so he was mining out faster). If Ohana was a 6 base map and had an easy-to-hold 5th and 6th, vortix would have turtled for 10-15+ more minutes on mass spine and BL/infestor/corruptor and possibly won out of attrition. Boring, terrible gameplay. But if everyone wants 6+ bases on every map.. I'll cave. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Might I suggest placing a watchtower somewhere on the low-ground between the natural and low-ground third? I can just see a terran placing a bunch of siege tanks just at the top of the ramp into the middle and cutting off the third, while still maintaining a high-ground advantage. Placing a watchtower would give vision onto the high ground and help with drops coming in to the natural, but it wouldn't reduce the chokey-ness of the area. Hey thanks for the feedback. Was typing the other reply as you posted. The siege tank at the highground thing has already been thought of and dealt with (they can only cover part of that passage if they are sieged up there, it's not nearly as powerful as it seems). But yeah that was an initial concern so good eye. Maybe I can play with XNT placements when I begrudgingly add that 6th base lol. (since it will require a significant restructuring of the map) | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I have a couple ways to make the 5th much easier to hold (the 5th being easier will have to be enough), after I test it quite a bit (+ Show Spoiler + because I'm tired of updating this map tbh :-P I have much more interesting map ideas than this thing Sorry to everyone for this thread being near the top so much (no one has complained but I'm sure someone has thought it lol), I know it's been bumped (mostly by me) more than an invisible man in a subway station | ||
|
MleTempS
Canada29 Posts
That way centre control is more important. just my two cents. Looks good though | ||
|
Gaius Baltar
United States449 Posts
| ||
|
CamoPillbox
Czech Republic229 Posts
 | ||
|
DreadLocK
Canada49 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Hey Fatam, it looks like the top of the main ramp can be hit by siege tanks from behind the rocks. Wouldn't that be imba in TvT because one player can do damage and elevator in the main while the other player has to walk all the way around to attack the siege tanks? Hey. I put the rocks as far out as they are for that reason (it's 12.2-13 distance from the closest spots behind the rocks to the main ramp, siege tank range is 12). Good eye though, maybe I'll move the rocks out another square or two if I can so that people have more breathing room for buildings and such. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 02 2012 08:43 Fatam wrote: Hey. I put the rocks as far out as they are for that reason (it's 12.2-13 distance from the closest spots behind the rocks to the main ramp, siege tank range is 12). Good eye though, maybe I'll move the rocks out another square or two if I can so that people have more breathing room for buildings and such. Well, if both players have tanks then they can shoot each other of course, and the defender has high ground vision advantage. If the defender has mixed/bio force, you can still walk up to one side of the rocks and shoot across them at any tanks close enough to hit your ramp (or so it appears). Also, isn't the point of the rocks to introduce new unique situations? (I understand if something is abusive it should be changed, but the players will have ample opportunity to destroy the rocks before a siege/elevator push hits, and that would be part of playing TvT on the map once that was "figured out.") | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Anyway, thanks path for the drawing on the other thread it was good/helpful | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
| ||
