|
On August 30 2012 19:36 Qikz wrote:
One thing I could suggest is in your bottom and top blue bases on the left and right respectively, you could use a small ramp on one of the sides to make it easier for defense as mech on this map for example would have real trouble with mobility unless you could slow down the pushes coming up that double ramp.
Not sure I followed, were you suggesting that one of the ramps on the 8 and 2 o'clock bases be a 1 FF ramp instead of 2? or that it have a 3rd ramp?
|
United Kingdom12043 Posts
On August 31 2012 05:15 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 19:36 Qikz wrote:
One thing I could suggest is in your bottom and top blue bases on the left and right respectively, you could use a small ramp on one of the sides to make it easier for defense as mech on this map for example would have real trouble with mobility unless you could slow down the pushes coming up that double ramp. Not sure I followed, were you suggesting that one of the ramps on the 8 and 2 o'clock bases be a 1 FF ramp instead of 2? or that it have a 3rd ramp?
Maybe have it as a one FF ramp to make it easier to defend late game. You can wall it slightly easier and you won't instantly lose your base for example if you're playing a more immobile style. ^^
|
Seems reasonable/makes some sense. That could be a slight improvement, hard to say. I've only played a couple games on it since that ramp was there. I'm gonna finish up the aesthetics (going to melt some brain cells and finish the middle tiling that I've been putting off ><) and publish as 1.0 later tonight, probably will put that change in there.
|
I'm concerned about the ramps you added in the middle with rocks. While it does provide an easier way to engage entrenched positions in the middle (or maneuver around them), it also leads to a very short rush distance at the critical 2base and 4base stages of the game.
The rocks should protect you from a 2base rush type attack, but it will be really scary for zerg after the rocks are down as the game goes on. Against terran especially the push distance is drastically reduced and very short compared to most maps.
The map won't be unplayable, but I think you'd get a lot of complaints from zergs in long ZvTs.
My original suggestion was to have very small ramps (manually narrowed) because of this problem. Not sure exactly what there is to do about it. Thoughts?
|
I know you just added in the gold minerals, but I personally believe golds are just bad in general, for anything, though I'm not a mapper and don't study maps often, just my opinion.
Really like the look of the map, it looks like there are choke points over most of the map and that if a terran takes control of the middle, getting out of your natural would be difficult, although the position of the third helps with that, I could see it being tough if he just out-expands you after taking center-control. (Low-Masters Zerg here so perhaps I'm biased though)
|
Golds should probably be someplace like far away from both players, not in the middle like everyone used to think. I think they are fine here, but I would remove the rocks.
|
On August 31 2012 08:33 Gfire wrote:
Golds should probably be someplace like far away from both players, not in the middle like everyone used to think. I think they are fine here, but I would remove the rocks.
Could cause some problems in ZvP if a zerg takes one of them as a natural. It will be hard for protoss to scout both of them, since they are so far away from each other. Ill leave those rocks there for now. They forfull a role.
|
So much to think about! Thanks for the responses.
- I agree that leaving the rocks @ the gold is probably necessary to prevent OP cheesy hidden ninja bases there early on.
- I think the discussion about the ramps in the middle is interesting. Yes, if the rocks are gone it provides a short rush distance, but you have to kill TWO rocks to make that happen, not just one. Even in a late game situation with a high dps army, killing two rocks takes a little bit of time and will be scouted if the other person has any map presence/awareness. That said, I hear what you're saying about the terran reinforce time vs zerg and that zergs will QQ. I would say I could narrow those ramps to 1 FF and still have them blocked with rocks, but I don't know that that really solves the problem you're suggesting. There's another solution, a little wackier but could work - if I make some sort of doodad / unpassable wall where those ramps come out, and have them curve around a bit towards the middle before the pathway empties out into the middle. There's not a lot of room to do it but it might be possible -
+ Show Spoiler +
That increases the rush distance through that path by at least 20 squares, allows those reinforcements to potentially be harassed as they are coming through there, and might negate the need for rocks there if the rush distance is increased by enough. I haven't looked at it in the editor yet. My only concern would be it having unintended effects, such as terrans parking tanks in there to control area while lings can't easily get to them.
There are other options too, such as going back to having no ramps there but increasing ramp sizes elsewhere. Which might be the best thing to do if you are a believer in occam's.
- @ changing the gold bases to normal bases, that is possible if it ends up being proven bad. I don't think these golds will be cheesy or imba like antiga golds were, since these golds are much more difficult to take. The later in the game a gold is taken, the smaller % boost it gives to your economy + Show Spoiler +(unless both people are mined out or something, in which case ANY new base will be huge, regardless of if it's gold or not)
|
I'm not sure that a fast expand to the gold is imbalanced. It's entertaining and we haven't seen enough of it in pro play to know for sure. I think it makes more sense to leave the rocks off and then add them if you need them later on. Then you can decide to either change them to blue bases or add the rocks later if you think it's necessary.
But I didn't realize they were 8hym2hyg. I think you should just leave them standard 6hym2g.
|
I think no rocks but 6hym2normalg is a solid compromise. I'll try to cook up something about the middle and post it for feedback
|
Here is the current solution I'm looking at strongly -
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KzmO2.jpg)
It reduces the absolute fastest nat-nat rush distance from 91 to 89.. which is incredibly negligible. 2 squares less than Ohana. And if you go that way you're obviously going through two 1 FF ramps, which is a disadvantage. That along with the change to the corner golds reduces my rock count to 2 :-O My poor rocks just never seem to survive.
+ Show Spoiler +I think these are the only viable position for middle ramps, if we really think there should be middle ramps at all (I'm still not 100% convinced it needs it) and are at the same time concerned about the rush/reinforce time for T. Reposition those 2 ramps any to the left or right and they either a) make the rush distance too short or b) become useless because they're -right- next to a bigger ramp.
Pretty happy with it but tell me what you think !
|
What are you measuring from? The nat ramps?
+ Show Spoiler +
What about something like this, to distinguish the ramps a bit? And I guess push the nat and main back a bit to add some more space in the low ground (which I think you aught to do anyway, as it's pretty tight especially over by the wide ramp.)
|
If the old configuration was only 4 squares less than ohana, then that's fine. It appeared a lot shorter from eyeballing it.
Although... part of my concern also had to do with the fact that the open ramps like that really decreased the importance of holding the high ground. If a player takes their 4th and then positions their army near the watch tower above the ramp near the 4th, an army can still move through the middle and then push down onto the low ground threatening the 4th and the natural. This requires instant reaction from the defender to move down off the high ground to prevent, and requires quick reaction in general to preserve a shred of "positional advantage" in that defensive engagement anywhere in the area. Against a terran who can easily stim and split off a devastating sliver of his army into the nat / main, this is a world of difference from requiring them to drop and/or go all the way around by the other ramp at the other end of the middle. And in any case it forces the defender to cede the high ground and the tower just to stay between the attacker and his targets.
So... I think the original picture you drew with a doodad (trees?) line obscuring the entrance to the ramps as you had them is a good solution, except for the fact that it really shrinks the openness of the low ground alleys, which before were just right imo.
What if you turned the ramps themselves and made them 1 ramps to hamper large army mobility? This would give you a couple squares increased distance too. (Apparently the distance is "okay" anyway.)
edit: I don't like the new ramps at all flipped sides. Reason: now it's a super short walk from attacker's natural to above the 4th base. Like an even worse version of the problem I describe.
|
Didn't even consider a couple of those things. Some good points. Here's the idea from earlier put into action:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K2gpY.jpg)
You'll notice I pulled the nat back a bit so it wouldn't cramp up too bad there.
1 FF ramp and if you go that way it's actually a longer rush compared to the normal way.
Not final on this idea yet but it looks decent, there's no real crampage anywhere and it serves all the purposes it was intended to.
edit: and now that I look at it, that ramp and little path synergize very well with the overlord spot right there
|
Yeah, that looks okay. The ramp above the 4th is sort of obstructed now though. >< Maybe you can push it back/over to give a little more room for a big engagement at/below that ramp.
Overall good change (I think). But it feels like the open space is reduced too much. I think it's important that there is a large amount of openness in front of the natural because the backdoor 3rd provides a "safe" play beyond your 2nd base. It should be scary for a choke-favoured army somewhere on the map.
To that end, maybe the best solution is to add 2-4 squares of vertical dimension to accommodate the bendy pathblock? Or, you could try using a narrow chain of doodads instead of actual sunken terrain. This would save you a couple squares.
Small note: you need to change the side the depot is on. Right now you could wall ramp-to-cliff with 2-3 bulidings (and cut off a zerg).
|
Yeah good call on the depot, that wasn't an issue before since that nat stuck out more.
I'll find a way to make a little more room. Cheers
|
All done. version 1.0
- Textures all completed.
- Area between the nat and 4th widened due to a slight reworking of the main/nat (that's now a juicy 16 to 18 square wide choke, quite roomy).
- Rocks now partially block the 1 FF ramps in the middle so that only small units such as workers/lings/zealots/marines/etc. can get through until the rocks are killed. Rush distance nat-nat via this route is now up to 85, which I think is acceptable given that it's only 6 squares less than Ohana and you have to kill a set of rocks at each ramp to get any kind of army through it. I liked all the space provided when I reworked things so I threw the doodad wall solution off the table because it would completely remove the space gained, and it would cause more problems in general (tank abuse, etc.) than it would solve.
- Made a couple changes (moved the supply depot, added a few rocks/trees) to prevent bunker/pylon abuse around the main ramp. Tricky business.
- Completely updated the original post (pics/verbage + added a couple new things).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7v5N3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0pEPz.jpg)
