[M] (2) Savanna

Post a Reply

Normal

ScorpSCII

Denmark499 Posts

August 29 2012 07:20 GMT

Uploaded to [EU]

Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +

Forge Fast Expand
+ Show Spoiler +

Details
Spawns: 2
Playable Bounds: 108x150
Bases: 10
Texture Set: Custom
Lighting: Custom (Haven)

+ Show Spoiler [Changelog] +

Major changes at fourth and fith bases
Minor aesthetic improvements

Please leave a comment, all feedback is appreciated.

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

August 29 2012 07:38 GMT

Not really a fan of this one. For P and T not meching there's no comfortable place to pop an army on 3 base and it seems a bit circley.

As for the FFE, that's not really a viable wallin. Pylon next to cannon is just 1 baneling bust away from an autoloss. I think it's possible to do a condemned ridge style wall with 4 3x3 buildings but it looks like you'd need multiple cannons to defend, especially vs roach attacks.

Visage814

United States109 Posts

August 29 2012 07:44 GMT

I love the center and the unique way you have FFE is cool, even if it does take more buildings than normal.
However the width of natural coupled with the three entrances to the third kind of scare me; I'm not sure many of the popular strategies would work on this map.
Also I like the aesthetics, really captures what I think a savanna should look like ^^

Syphon8

Canada298 Posts

August 29 2012 08:38 GMT

On August 29 2012 16:38 Yonnua wrote:
Not really a fan of this one. For P and T not meching there's no comfortable place to pop an army on 3 base and it seems a bit circley.

As for the FFE, that's not really a viable wallin. Pylon next to cannon is just 1 baneling bust away from an autoloss. I think it's possible to do a condemned ridge style wall with 4 3x3 buildings but it looks like you'd need multiple cannons to defend, especially vs roach attacks.

You always need multiple cannons and thicker walls to defend against 1 or 2 base plays...

ArcticRaven

France1406 Posts

August 29 2012 09:16 GMT

Yeah, I think that's ridiculous. Daybreak has the same kind of wallins by the way (pylon in wall or 4 3x3 buildings), and it's nowhere near an autoloss map to baneling busts.

Qikz

United Kingdom12022 Posts

August 29 2012 09:18 GMT

On August 29 2012 16:44 Visage814 wrote:
I love the center and the unique way you have FFE is cool, even if it does take more buildings than normal.
However the width of natural coupled with the three entrances to the third kind of scare me; I'm not sure many of the popular strategies would work on this map.
Also I like the aesthetics, really captures what I think a savanna should look like ^^

That's why I'm in love with this map. Maps need to be different to change the metagame and force people to try new things.

Also with all that highground at your third and the ramps I can't wait to try meching on this map.

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

August 29 2012 09:42 GMT

On August 29 2012 17:38 Syphon8 wrote:

Show nested quote +

You always need multiple cannons and thicker walls to defend against 1 or 2 base plays...

But if I FFE and an opponent turns up with 2 roaches, in the time it takes to get out 1 gateway unit, he can take out a forge and can nearly kill a cyber core. If you don't have a cannon directly behind that building, the roaches can't be hit by it. (Sometimes they still can't if the cannon IS directly behind). With the example FFE in the op, the cyber core is 100% dead to just a couple of roaches. The pylon and cannon die to high eco baneling aggression. FFE is meant to defend against both of those builds.

On August 29 2012 18:16 ArcticRaven wrote:
Yeah, I think that's ridiculous. Daybreak has the same kind of wallins by the way (pylon in wall or 4 3x3 buildings), and it's nowhere near an autoloss map to baneling busts.

That's because you don't wall with a pylon and a cannon, you wall with gates, core and forge.

Maybe a Duck

Germany53 Posts

August 29 2012 10:15 GMT

The way the 3rd is designed i see this beeing 100% immortal all-inn in pvz. For Toss its not very attractice to take a 3rd you got to go up a ramp, but you dont benefit from the high ground very much, as you expose your natural if you go all the way to the other 2 entrances. on top of that you can get cut of from your natural which would pretty much be gg. On the zerg side of things, there is litaraly no way to have good enough creep spread, to deny a immortal all inn to go to the high ground, and if it kills the zergs 3rd toss also has the high ground advantage to operate from; also pretty much gg.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

August 29 2012 16:03 GMT

The 3rd is not much different from Antiga, it's fine.

That FFE wall is never going to work though. The cannon has to be inside the wall. Also consider that you will start your wall from the ramp with the forge, with a protected cannon, so this pylon placement is impossible. It's a two pylon wall. However a single tree next to the ramp would provide one square of coverage and change it to a single pylon wall. If that's what you want.

The middle is really cool!

Maybe you can pull the 6th base away from the enemy main a bit more, and towards the edge of the map more. It's really easy for protoss to harass by warping in from the main.

Maybe a Duck

Germany53 Posts

August 29 2012 16:12 GMT

#10

In fact the 3rd is worse than Antigas, and Antigas 2rd is already borderline bad in my opinion.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

August 29 2012 16:38 GMT

#11

On August 30 2012 01:12 Maybe a Duck wrote:
In fact the 3rd is worse than Antigas, and Antigas 2rd is already borderline bad in my opinion.

It's the same distance, maybe slight difference in ramp placement. Definitely easier to go from your wall to the 3rd on this.

But I don't disagree, Antiga is hard. The distance here is comparable to Antiga cross though.

The difficulty is in the roach ling ball occupying the transit between the 3rd and natural. If they just attack at one place it's easy to defend with FF. Here it's a bit nicer to keep your army divided between 3rd and main with the little side path at the natural, joining up as needed. You would still need a big cannon wall at the 3rd against roach max though.

DuBlooNz

United Kingdom103 Posts

August 29 2012 16:55 GMT

#12

I think this is a good ma but needs some improvements such as:
the natural needs to be closed so a FFE is possible,
The third needs to be a bit eaiser to take by removing one of the ramps or adding rocks.(I would remove the "inside" ramp but thats your choice)

This map does have a lot of potential though

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

August 29 2012 19:02 GMT

#13

There are some really interesting ideas done here that I really like. Sadly though, not all of them work here. Such include the concept behind the fifth and sixth design. When I get back on my main pc later tonight I'll draw out some pretty pictures to help illustrate my ideas.

WniO

United States2706 Posts

August 29 2012 19:07 GMT

#14

excellent use of space so far - even making it a 2v2 at this point with another expo would be interesting

ScorpSCII

Denmark499 Posts

August 29 2012 20:03 GMT

#15

Thanks for all of the comments so far. That's exactly why I decided to put up a thread at this point

I'll read through your comments when I've got time, and hopefully pull something cool out of my wizard hat in the coming days. Dont hesitate to keep posting though

Fatam

1986 Posts

August 29 2012 20:10 GMT

#16

I think 2 of the LOS blockers are pointless/don't do anything (the ones at top of ramps). Map has an elegant simplicity, I think 3 entrances to the 3rds may be overkill though.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

August 29 2012 21:38 GMT

#17

On August 30 2012 04:02 Timetwister22 wrote:
There are some really interesting ideas done here that I really like. Sadly though, not all of them work here. Such include the concept behind the fifth and sixth design. When I get back on my main pc later tonight I'll draw out some pretty pictures to help illustrate my ideas.

I'm really interested to hear about the 5th.

On August 30 2012 05:10 Fatam wrote:
I think 2 of the LOS blockers are pointless/don't do anything (the ones at top of ramps). Map has an elegant simplicity, I think 3 entrances to the 3rds may be overkill though.

The LosB on top make that entrance more or less symmetrical for inside and out (vision wise), so it allows the one diagonal to be different than the other. Not a big deal, would be fine either way.

ScorpSCII

Denmark499 Posts

August 30 2012 19:05 GMT

#18

This is what I have in the works currently

+ Show Spoiler [Overview] +

+ Show Spoiler [Close-ups] +

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

August 30 2012 22:31 GMT

#19

From the new overview I have the impression you are playing Protoss? Very few open areas. Lots of chokes. It is mainly double ramps that structure the area when you move from base to base.

Also the last base is still much too close to the opponent. Leave it away completely or move it somewhere else. as a cliff hugging base closer to the fifth or maybe as a forward base next to the main or towards middle area. Widening the map to 116 (at least) will help you a lot! 120 would be even better.

DangerAl

Australia88 Posts

August 30 2012 23:40 GMT

#20

My biggest concern with this map is that the main mineral looks to me a long long way away from the main ramp. As a terran player, I shudder to think about dealing with drone harass, blink stalkers, mutalisks and drops on this map. I guess it is in same ways balanced out by the fact that drops will be more effective for terran, but I would still like to see that distance shortened. It is one of the biggest I've seen, and I find maps are generally better when this distance is shorter (eg. I'm not a fan of the long walk on Shakura's).

The third doesn't look to bad to me, I don't understand why everyone is so worried. I think the ramps are especially not a problem. It is very unlikely that anyone will be defending at the ramps, so it really makes little difference whether the attacker can go up one or two of them (until the 4th is taken). One thing that could be good to implement is making a bit more of a choke at the third. I am thinking between the main ramp up it and the opposite cliff wall. Currently any sort of wall in at the third, or even a FF defence, looks quite difficult.

Also, I am not sure what the XNWT covers. Does it watch over all the high ground attack routes?

Also, I really like the look of the 4th and 5th bases. I'm not sure if the rocks are really necessary at the 4th though.

ScorpSCII

Denmark499 Posts

August 31 2012 05:04 GMT

#21

Thanks for your feedback

On August 31 2012 07:31 Samro225am wrote:
From the new overview I have the impression you are playing Protoss? Very few open areas. Lots of chokes. It is mainly double ramps that structure the area when you move from base to base.

Also the last base is still much too close to the opponent. Leave it away completely or move it somewhere else. as a cliff hugging base closer to the fifth or maybe as a forward base next to the main or towards middle area. Widening the map to 116 (at least) will help you a lot! 120 would be even better.

I am playing Z

I'll make some changes to that 6th base, thanks for pointing it out.

On August 31 2012 08:40 DangerAl wrote:
My biggest concern with this map is that the main mineral looks to me a long long way away from the main ramp. As a terran player, I shudder to think about dealing with drone harass, blink stalkers, mutalisks and drops on this map. I guess it is in same ways balanced out by the fact that drops will be more effective for terran, but I would still like to see that distance shortened. It is one of the biggest I've seen, and I find maps are generally better when this distance is shorter (eg. I'm not a fan of the long walk on Shakura's).

The third doesn't look to bad to me, I don't understand why everyone is so worried. I think the ramps are especially not a problem. It is very unlikely that anyone will be defending at the ramps, so it really makes little difference whether the attacker can go up one or two of them (until the 4th is taken). One thing that could be good to implement is making a bit more of a choke at the third. I am thinking between the main ramp up it and the opposite cliff wall. Currently any sort of wall in at the third, or even a FF defence, looks quite difficult.

Also, I am not sure what the XNWT covers. Does it watch over all the high ground attack routes?

Also, I really like the look of the 4th and 5th bases. I'm not sure if the rocks are really necessary at the 4th though.

The main's mineral line as well as the third will get some love soon enough too.

The XNT does not cover the high ground paths, only up to the LoS and a tiny bit further (due to the LoS blockers at the ramp not following this circular pattern).

DontNerfInfestors

Spain280 Posts

August 31 2012 06:10 GMT

#22

my problem with this map is that it will be another 4 gate map

Maybe a Duck

Germany53 Posts

August 31 2012 08:06 GMT

#23

I like the changes very much so far. Only thing i dont understand is the reason for the rocks at the 4th.

ScorpSCII

Denmark499 Posts

August 31 2012 16:07 GMT

#24

Updated OP

Fatam

1986 Posts

September 01 2012 00:58 GMT

#25

My biggest concern with this map is that the main mineral looks to me a long long way away from the main ramp

I'm assuming the main mineral line isn't the same as it used to be, because that mineral line isn't far away from the main ramp at all in the current version.

I like the subtle chasm outside the main and then the doodads to the N and S of the mains to prevent blink obs surface area from being too big. They have an entrance in the back but the surface area for it isn't obnoxiously huge like antiga.

I don't really understand the rocks @ the 4th either, but maybe there is a good reason

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

September 01 2012 01:55 GMT

#26

I really like how the high ground third allows for some very interesting early-mid game play, yet I feel this will not carry over well into the late game. Thus, I have a suggestion that might help this neat high ground play stay alive into the mid and late game.

+ Show Spoiler +

-By having a high ground overlook the fourth and fifth, defending the high ground location continues to be an important task throughout the game. This would also help alleviate some of the awkward kinks in the current fourth and fifth design. I did however forget to include rocks on the fourth, which if you'd like to keep would still be ok.

-I moved the Xel'naga tower(s) to make it easier to defend the natural and third early on, but if you think such a change would make the towers too powerful, the current setup is fine.

-I also suggested some changes to the third, as it felt fairly cramped.

Hope this helps!

ScorpSCII

Denmark499 Posts

September 04 2012 19:20 GMT

#27

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

September 04 2012 21:27 GMT

#28

Love it!

RFDaemoniac

United States544 Posts

September 04 2012 21:39 GMT

#29

I really like the new overview, very interesting attack paths against a 3basing player while still being defensible. I do have some issues with the 5th being so close to your opponent's main. Perhaps removing some of of the high ground just behind it so that you can pull it away from the main?

Yonnua

United Kingdom2331 Posts

September 04 2012 22:25 GMT

#30

I feel like the new fourth base is kind of easy after you take the third. It's certainly not harder to take the fourth than it is to take the third, and I feel like it should be to prevent dull games.

Also, can siege tanks on the high ground at the third cover the main ramp completely?

Normal

Please or register to reply.

[M] (2) Savanna

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming