@a176 Something about it looks kind of generic now. Did you change the proportions/shapes in the middle or...?

@elche: I think the middle would be better as a wiggle than a tight choke. Cliffable 3rd is pretty rough for zerg, maybe there should be rocks there that you have to kill before you can stand and shoot the minerals? I think the 4/10 bases shouldn't have that little hole next to them. They are lategame so should easily accomodate big fights. The watchtowers combined with the collapsible rocks and center ramps is brilliant.

Elche

Finland170 Posts

September 26 2013 13:27 GMT

#1565

Some minor changes and pics.
Feels pretty complete now, probably only some shaping to do.

90Degree
+ Show Spoiler +

60Degree
+ Show Spoiler +

Pocket Third
+ Show Spoiler +

Only siegetank and colossus with a thermal lance can hit the mineral line from the cliff. (Marauder and stalker just for scale

Main
+ Show Spoiler +

Main can be blinked from the lowground similar to whirlwind but is pretty difficult with more than just a couple of stalkers. Siegetank can't hit the gas in main.

a176

Canada6688 Posts

September 26 2013 19:45 GMT

#1566

On September 26 2013 04:41 EatThePath wrote:
@a176 Something about it looks kind of generic now. Did you change the proportions/shapes in the middle or...?

the paths into the top-middle base were all pretty small. didnt hold up well in playtesting. so i widened the entrance closest to the defender.

and i added another path into the side-middle base; games were too one dimesional with everything going through the middle paths = dat split map. it was too much work for players to navigate around the side rock'd path as an alternate path through the map.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

September 27 2013 02:58 GMT

#1567

On September 27 2013 04:45 a176 wrote:

Show nested quote +

I see, still like the looks of it.

@elche I didn't realize it was only tank/colossus, thanks.

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

September 28 2013 17:02 GMT

#1568

Currently working on this monstrosity:

Meavis

Netherlands1300 Posts

September 28 2013 17:40 GMT

#1569

On September 29 2013 02:02 Coppermantis wrote:
Currently working on this monstrosity:

close third is to hard to defend for races other than Z, defendable "third" is quite far

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

September 30 2013 06:55 GMT

#1570

The main feature is the optional 3rd which is extremely close to the main by air but far by ground, and is easily defended with the 1-width entrance ramp. P could take it as a 3rd if they are going air, or P/T could possibly take it as a 3rd playing a normal ground style, using walloffs/bunkers/FFs to stall opposing ground armies until they can move their army to defend. Of course this is all theoretical.

Yes, I used a few cardinal ramps. No, they don't break the map lol.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

September 30 2013 15:45 GMT

#1571

Ha I love it! Very interesting base, although it seems like there is almost no way to take a 5th base. I think adding a semi mid base would be good, although I don't see any room for it.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

September 30 2013 20:24 GMT

#1572

@negzero I love the center of the map. And great use of narrow places overall. Need more stuff like this that asks players to actually pay attention to army movements instead of amove or right click from one spot to another.

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

September 30 2013 22:53 GMT

#1573

I'm thinking of expanding the map from 132x132 to 140x140 and adding 6m1hyg bases on the center high grounds about where the low-ground gaps are right now. Thoughts? Good/bad idea?

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

September 30 2013 23:16 GMT

#1574

You mean below the high ground?
When I read your comment I was thinking about something like this:

[image loading]

I think allowing units to still pass through the gap would keep all the features of the map while adding cool new ones and having more resources on the map, which is needed. I think this thing would be good and would not even require the map to be bigger

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

September 30 2013 23:21 GMT

#1575

I was thinking something like this:
+ Show Spoiler +

But I like your idea too and it's a lot more unique, so I'll have to decide.

Edit: Here's the choices, and sorry, "both" isn't an option - I don't want 14 bases on a 132x132 map lol.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

September 30 2013 23:43 GMT

#1576

Why not both?

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

October 01 2013 00:46 GMT

#1577

On September 30 2013 15:55 -NegativeZero- wrote:Yes, I used a few cardinal ramps. No, they don't break the map lol.

Burn the witch!!

But seriously, agree w/ EatThePath's comment, the middle is very intriguing. I would say that the low ground 6m1hyg near that middle path is the one I would favor, but also that I don't think it really needs another base and works nicely in the first iteration posted.

Coppermantis

United States845 Posts

October 01 2013 05:50 GMT

#1578

Made some changes around the third and slight adjustment to the fourth.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

October 01 2013 06:17 GMT

#1579

@copper I need to think about this more o_O isn't this something you've been playing with for a while? it looks familiar

@neg I don't like either. The highground 3/4 base will just make for boring passive games where people take the righthand 3rd and the middle as a 4th and then someone will lose theirs after the big fight. Game possibly could go on if someone took the 4/10 in the meantime. It makes the center an obligatory standoff, not a position in flux you might want to hold.
The lowground one will be impossible to use, since you'd need to maintain control of their highground in order to mine half the patches, and a bio mine push through the narrow gap would be hellish to turn around, or forcefield based army, etc.

However if you turned the lowground bases clockwise 1/3 turn and put them snug up against the cliff where the rocks are, it fixes most of the problems and also just makes the base better and more interesting imo. It would make your highground even more important (while you had that base) making the fight over the trench even more important but not the only option for positioning. You could defend from the lowground as well, and you would need to be ready to move there to meet an attack that comes from the low ground. This version would become better as a stepping stone to the close air 3rd as well imo.

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

October 01 2013 07:13 GMT

#1580

On October 01 2013 15:17 EatThePath wrote:
@neg I don't like either. The highground 3/4 base will just make for boring passive games where people take the righthand 3rd and the middle as a 4th and then someone will lose theirs after the big fight. Game possibly could go on if someone took the 4/10 in the meantime. It makes the center an obligatory standoff, not a position in flux you might want to hold.
The lowground one will be impossible to use, since you'd need to maintain control of their highground in order to mine half the patches, and a bio mine push through the narrow gap would be hellish to turn around, or forcefield based army, etc.

However if you turned the lowground bases clockwise 1/3 turn and put them snug up against the cliff where the rocks are, it fixes most of the problems and also just makes the base better and more interesting imo. It would make your highground even more important (while you had that base) making the fight over the trench even more important but not the only option for positioning. You could defend from the lowground as well, and you would need to be ready to move there to meet an attack that comes from the low ground. This version would become better as a stepping stone to the close air 3rd as well imo.

Your explanation for why the low-ground base is so difficult to hold actually gave me a good argument to keep it as is, lol. I want it to be completely non-viable as a 3rd and not really be a base which is used very often - basically a late-game option for scrappy situations where players have small armies and are struggling to maintain an income, keeping with the map's small and aggressive nature.