|
On August 25 2012 01:28 monitor wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've got a couple balance concerns/gameplay concerns that I'll list here, but I must preface by saying this is a very good looking map and looks well made. So my first point is a minor one, and it is that the main looks very small. Lategame TvZ and TvP can sometimes get up to 15+ barracks or so. It's important to have somewhere to build them, and usually the main the is the most comfortable and logical spot. On this map, there is a little bit of space near the third and a tiny bit of room in the inbase natural, but not quite enough total. I think the main needs to be enlarged- you could almost double the size now and it would be fine. For my suggestion how to do this, I have to talk about my other concerns. My second point of concern is the the fourth, fifth, and sixth (if needed) bases are nearly impossible for zerg to take in ZvP, and to a lesser extent in ZvT. This is because the distances between the players are very short- similar to Ohana. These days, Zerg can almost never take a fourth or fifth expansion against P/T on Ohana because the opponent's pushes come so quickly that there is no time to react or get into position. Ohana has some previous stats that help it be balanced on TLPD, but I believe it is going to become worse and worse for balance. Also the gameplay strongly discourages comebacks and encourages being highly aggressive. The white lines show pushes coming from Protoss, but it could be Terran also. The distances are all very short and don't give Zerg much time to react, build spines, get in position, counter attack, etc. On top of that, the push paths are very very small and choked which will make any PvZ just that much stronger until Zerg has brood lords. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K4qKH.jpg) Daybreak has a similar lategame style, where the expansions are along the left and right sides of the map in a linear fashion. However there is a major difference between the maps- Daybreak is MUCH larger cross map, because the map is longer horizontally than vertically. I believe that Uncanny Valley is going to need to be stretched in order to make the gameplay work. Widening the map by simply enlarging the middle would work wonders imo. Even 12-16 hexes would help the problems, but you could probably go up to 24 hexes increase if you want. Essentially you could leave the main/nat where they are and move the rest of the map outwards, which will allow you to increase the main size. Note: The push distances become even shorter as the game progresses (5th to natural is short and the middle bases are seconds from the opponent). [edit] My final concern with the map is that these areas are too easy to hide units below, because the double cliffs with overshadow units on the lowground if they are positioned correctly. The same problem occurs with the middle expos on Shakuras, except minerals block most of the spots that units can be hidden. A simple solution is to raise the lowground harassment areas to middleground. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uIjM3.jpg)
Thanks for the feedback monitor, once again proving that you are the boss when it comes to understanding maps. If I'm honest with myself, I kind of knew that it wasn't wide enough but having already widened it once, and knowing what a pain it would be fixing all the aesthetics, I've been reluctant. The main size issue is also something I was aware of, having already made it as large as I could within the bounds I was working with. My plan for the next update is to move the nat gas nearest to the main to the other side so that there is a larger area there to expand the main. This will also mean that zergs get a much easier overlord scout on the nat gasses, hopefully this will be counteracted slightly by the fact that the main gasses are much harder to scout, any thoughts on this? The other change I was considering is moving the rocks from the ramp they are currently on to the ramp between the main/nat/3rd but I'm much more hesitant on that one and I don't want it to be too passive plus players seem to be able to hold the 3-wide ramp on entombed just fine.
The point about hiding units behind the double cliff is not something that I had thought of. Luckily it's an easy fix 
|
On August 25 2012 02:30 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 01:28 monitor wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've got a couple balance concerns/gameplay concerns that I'll list here, but I must preface by saying this is a very good looking map and looks well made. So my first point is a minor one, and it is that the main looks very small. Lategame TvZ and TvP can sometimes get up to 15+ barracks or so. It's important to have somewhere to build them, and usually the main the is the most comfortable and logical spot. On this map, there is a little bit of space near the third and a tiny bit of room in the inbase natural, but not quite enough total. I think the main needs to be enlarged- you could almost double the size now and it would be fine. For my suggestion how to do this, I have to talk about my other concerns. My second point of concern is the the fourth, fifth, and sixth (if needed) bases are nearly impossible for zerg to take in ZvP, and to a lesser extent in ZvT. This is because the distances between the players are very short- similar to Ohana. These days, Zerg can almost never take a fourth or fifth expansion against P/T on Ohana because the opponent's pushes come so quickly that there is no time to react or get into position. Ohana has some previous stats that help it be balanced on TLPD, but I believe it is going to become worse and worse for balance. Also the gameplay strongly discourages comebacks and encourages being highly aggressive. The white lines show pushes coming from Protoss, but it could be Terran also. The distances are all very short and don't give Zerg much time to react, build spines, get in position, counter attack, etc. On top of that, the push paths are very very small and choked which will make any PvZ just that much stronger until Zerg has brood lords. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K4qKH.jpg) Daybreak has a similar lategame style, where the expansions are along the left and right sides of the map in a linear fashion. However there is a major difference between the maps- Daybreak is MUCH larger cross map, because the map is longer horizontally than vertically. I believe that Uncanny Valley is going to need to be stretched in order to make the gameplay work. Widening the map by simply enlarging the middle would work wonders imo. Even 12-16 hexes would help the problems, but you could probably go up to 24 hexes increase if you want. Essentially you could leave the main/nat where they are and move the rest of the map outwards, which will allow you to increase the main size. Note: The push distances become even shorter as the game progresses (5th to natural is short and the middle bases are seconds from the opponent). [edit] My final concern with the map is that these areas are too easy to hide units below, because the double cliffs with overshadow units on the lowground if they are positioned correctly. The same problem occurs with the middle expos on Shakuras, except minerals block most of the spots that units can be hidden. A simple solution is to raise the lowground harassment areas to middleground. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uIjM3.jpg) Thanks for the feedback monitor, once again proving that you are the boss when it comes to understanding maps. If I'm honest with myself, I kind of knew that it wasn't wide enough but having already widened it once, and knowing what a pain it would be fixing all the aesthetics, I've been reluctant. The main size issue is also something I was aware of, having already made it as large as I could within the bounds I was working with. My plan for the next update is to move the nat gas nearest to the main to the other side so that there is a larger area there to expand the main. This will also mean that zergs get a much easier overlord scout on the nat gasses, hopefully this will be counteracted slightly by the fact that the main gasses are much harder to scout, any thoughts on this? The other change I was considering is moving the rocks from the ramp they are currently on to the ramp between the main/nat/3rd but I'm much more hesitant on that one and I don't want it to be too passive plus players seem to be able to hold the 3-wide ramp on entombed just fine. The point about hiding units behind the double cliff is not something that I had thought of. Luckily it's an easy fix 
Heh, thanks. I know its a massive pain, and ultimately it is your map so any changes are your decision of course. I often won't change my maps because its too much of a nuisance once I've finished the aesthetics. The gas move sounds good but I doubt it will fix the small size completely. I always like encouraging scouting, and I don't mind if its easy. I kind of prefer easy to scout gasses in both the main and natural. Scouting the gases is especially important in ZvP and ZvT, but Zerg can usually sack an ovie to scout the main. I wouldn't be too concerned about it, its kind of a minor thing.
|
Updated! Changed a bunch of things. Will do some aesthetics shots tomorrow. Somehow I've been mapping with my texture settings set to low this whole time, I was wondering why my maps looked so different in game to in the editor. Now that's fixed expect my screenshots to be much better.
It's published to the melee section on EU if anyone fancies playing on it.
|
Looks really good. Looks like you updated the aesthetics a bit from when I last saw it.
|
Yay, you got rid of the unnecesary LOS blockers ^_^ The map is on the small side, and not all the expos will be taken, but small map + back expo is interesting.
|
On September 11 2012 15:02 Semmo wrote: Yay, you got rid of the unnecesary LOS blockers ^_^ The map is on the small side, and not all the expos will be taken, but small map + back expo is interesting.
Yeah you've touched on the concept there. I figured SC2 is mostly a 2 base game now, with the exception of PvP. So, if players are going to get up to 2 bases anyway, why not give them the second base for free? Well in the past this has lead to turtley, deathbally games, so this map is my attempt at countering that. The nat is harassable but difficult to attack head-on. This means you have some interesting decisions on when to break down your own rocks once you have your 3rd base. Breaking down the rocks makes for easier harass defence as you can park your army at the top of the ramp and move to the 3rd/nat/main easily but makes your nat more vulnerable. I imagine most players will break down the rocks once the 3rd is established but may choose to keep them if they feel certain timing attacks are coming. The map emphasises control of the middle which should also help break up turtley games, especially as it is a small map so seeing your opponent coming is very important. The middle is quite open though so you have to be wary of flanks and being caught out of position. The outer LoS blockers denote the radius of the XNT meaning you can't see in but they can't see out, which should encourage scouting. The centre bases also help control of the middle but at the sacrifice of a slightly lower economy (6m1hg) and less obvious expansions. The 4ths being double high ground and roughly the same distance from the opposition as the 3rd should make them easier to defend but taking them does change the area you have to defend considerably. With the 4th (and subsequent 5th) and the nat being open to harass I can see this being a good tactic whilst pushing the 3rd. As you rightly said, I doubt all of the bases will be taken in 1 game, the forward bases would be extremely difficult to hold whilst the opposition has their 4th/5th but I feel every bases has a use and is important in different situations/matchups.
My main worry with the map in it's current guise is the 3rd. I'm unsure exactly how this will play out and whether the choke or the main 3x ramp need tweaks. Would love to get some high level games on it as there is only so much I can learn from getting rolled by ArcticRaven's mech build every game
|
|
|
Now Available on NA
|
Who wants to play?
|
Don't forget to send me your replays if you do
|
Hey I played a couple PvZ's, they were way fun. I will add some comments and some links to the replays later. For now:
One of the geysers is unbuildable, the left one at the 4 oclock base. Double check there's no doodad or something?
Also you can blink over the rocks into the natural, despite the LosB. Not sure if this is intended behavior. If you want to prevent blink-ins you'd need to put the LosB inside the rocks. Can't decide if I like the ability to blink in or not. It's cool so I guess it should stay, but it allows an extra aggressive option in PvP for blink all-ins to be so much stronger.
|
On September 18 2012 07:36 EatThePath wrote: Hey I played a couple PvZ's, they were way fun. I will add some comments and some links to the replays later. For now:
One of the geysers is unbuildable, the left one at the 4 oclock base. Double check there's no doodad or something?
Also you can blink over the rocks into the natural, despite the LosB. Not sure if this is intended behavior. If you want to prevent blink-ins you'd need to put the LosB inside the rocks. Can't decide if I like the ability to blink in or not. It's cool so I guess it should stay, but it allows an extra aggressive option in PvP for blink all-ins to be so much stronger.
Thanks for the heads up! Will look in to those.
|
Map looks stunning, good work!
|
On September 18 2012 20:13 eTcetRa wrote: Map looks stunning, good work!
Cheers man. I played on Orbit Brutus the other day, holy shit it is even better looking in-game! Seriously nice map.
In regards to the blinking over the rocks issue, what are people's thoughts on this? Baring in mind that if they had an observer they would be able to blink there anyway.
I think I will have to change it as it intuitively feels like you shouldn't be able to do this. I will do some testing in this area regardless.
|
I agree intuitively it feels like you shouldn't be able to. And I'm surprised that this prevents warp in if it doesn't prevent blink, as both of those require vision of the area you're targeting, no?
|
On September 19 2012 02:15 RFDaemoniac wrote: I agree intuitively it feels like you shouldn't be able to. And I'm surprised that this prevents warp in if it doesn't prevent blink, as both of those require vision of the area you're targeting, no? I'd imagine if the area that you can see is small enough you would be able to blink in but not have enough room to warp. Stalkers can probably blink to even the smallest speck of space (just as you can or could drop units into small areas,) and then they are further into the losb.
|
|
|
|