Cool ideas rife. The nat2nat looks rather short, idk. And there is not a good option for a 3rd that doesn't keep you relatively close to the opponent. 4k/3armor is going to last quite a long time, I think you should reduce it a bit. It'd be nice to see players using the map as early as possible, like incorporating the timing of the bridge kill into a FE build order. It might also be a nice touch to include shield/repair on the control structures so you can interdict another player's attempted bridge closure and then depend on the bridge to recover, especially if you defend the spot. The location of the structures already gives them some protection.

Do you have a trigger that kills/moves the units on the bridge when the structure is killed? This was the main impediment I had to bridge usage, because I couldn't figure out the best way of handling this case.

MarcusRife

343 Posts

January 22 2014 23:55 GMT

#1944

On January 23 2014 07:56 EatThePath wrote:
Cool ideas rife. The nat2nat looks rather short, idk. And there is not a good option for a 3rd that doesn't keep you relatively close to the opponent. 4k/3armor is going to last quite a long time, I think you should reduce it a bit. It'd be nice to see players using the map as early as possible, like incorporating the timing of the bridge kill into a FE build order. It might also be a nice touch to include shield/repair on the control structures so you can interdict another player's attempted bridge closure and then depend on the bridge to recover, especially if you defend the spot. The location of the structures already gives them some protection.

Do you have a trigger that kills/moves the units on the bridge when the structure is killed? This was the main impediment I had to bridge usage, because I couldn't figure out the best way of handling this case.

The rush distances are a little short. Not as short as Steppes of War but shorter than is standard these days. But, because the bridges can be killed the players can counteract this. The kill time on the structures is something that needs to be thought about. I figured twice as long to kill rocks to permanently close a path sounded reasonable but it may need to be adjusted. Any units caught on the bridge when it retracts are killed.

As far interdicting on closing bridges the players will just have to fight that out through normal means. That is part of the reason why I like making it permanent. Otherwise there is less incentive to care about a bridge being closed.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

January 23 2014 00:05 GMT

#1945

Asymmetrical map design:
Top left has smaller nat choke and a ramp, but is more vulnerable to drops to the main. Bottom right has main that is much harder to defend versus blink and reapers, but lategame has a much better base layout, being able to defend 4 and a half bases from the half base, and deny the 9 base for the opponent.

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

January 24 2014 07:11 GMT

#1946

Just made something incredibly stupid. Any changes I could make to get it to actually work?

The center path is generally about 2 tiles wide, and its ramp into the main has been narrowed to sqrt(2) tiles wide (about half the width of the smallest ordinary ramp) - narrow enough that only 1-2 units can fit sideways at a time, allowing even zerg to have a strong defender's advantage on top of the ramp with a concave of short-ranged units.

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

January 24 2014 14:45 GMT

#1947

too difficult to take a 4th base @NegativeZero

Meavis

Netherlands1300 Posts

January 26 2014 00:16 GMT

#1948

interesting for sure but 2 alternative entrances and a cliff behind main is a bit to overkill on gimmicks for my feelings.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

January 26 2014 08:00 GMT

#1949

@negativezero: I think you can do better with the same concept but more interesting / integrated layout. You gave me a lot of inspiration and now I'm making something very similar that I'll post soon.

@moskonia: I just don't understand the point of asymmetric maps, other than they're kinda fun. What sort of feedback are you looking for?

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

January 26 2014 21:54 GMT

#1950

On January 26 2014 17:00 EatThePath wrote:
@moskonia: I just don't understand the point of asymmetric maps, other than they're kinda fun. What sort of feedback are you looking for?

Asymmetric maps are very different from normal maps, since each player not only has the race difference (most of the time), but also a different base layout, thus increasing the strategy potential. I want feedback on how I managed the layout, having a balanced asymmetrical design should be incredibly hard, and it was barely done so it is pretty hard to compare a new map idea to known good maps.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

January 30 2014 19:33 GMT

#1951

@mosk: Everything is relatively equivalent even though it's not technically symmetrical, which is good I suppose. But it begs the question, what key differences are there that result in different strategies/tactics? Because you minimize these things to preserve parity as much as possible, or give loosely equivalent features. In the case of non mirror match, the matchup already has asymmetries that will make the terrain be used differently by either side. In the case of mirror match, it's just imbalanced, even if it might be very close and/or take a long time to understand which side is favored.

@negativezero: This is what I came up with given the prompt "how can I make this work?" after a few tries to make things fit properly. I really like the idea of the shortcut leading to an optional gold 3rd. I didn't include a backdoor in my version but I thought about it. I didn't bother to put the doodads in to make the precisely narrow shortcut path but you can just imagine them there. The rush is 105 via shortcut and 165 via long way.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

January 30 2014 19:44 GMT

#1952

In maps like Whirwind there is already asymmetrical positions in close spawns, so basically it already exists, so why not make it into a 2 player map to remove the annoying luck factor (the scout pattern) and keep the interesting luck factor (the different strategy). I understand that you don't see why is it good, but I think having vastly different map designs is important, even if in reality it doesn't make much of a difference, having a map like that in the map pool from time to time can spice things up.

About the map layout you made, I think you can siege up the main from the half 3rd, don't know if that was intentional or not. Overall map design looks solid, golds are in a perfect position imo, hard to take and defend.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

January 30 2014 19:53 GMT

#1953

I don't think you can hit the CC from the lowground, but a few mineral patches on that side only. Imagine adjusted as needed. ^^

Well I actually agree that there should be very different maps in a pool and even (especially?) things players and some viewers won't like. In theory I appreciate the idea of asymmetrical designs as offering primarily spiciness, but I just think it should be done with very clear intentions and design goals. And I think that asymmetric maps out of all maps should have extremely strong concepts.

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

January 30 2014 20:12 GMT

#1954

Attacking the CC is not an issue if only 1 or 2 can hit (well it is an issue, but not a huge one), hitting the mineral line is a very big issue, since it is very hard to hold for Zerg players, since they rely on melee or short ranged units at the start and you can potentially deny the main from mining using 1 or 2 tanks and a few marines.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

January 30 2014 21:01 GMT

#1955

On January 31 2014 05:12 moskonia wrote:
Attacking the CC is not an issue if only 1 or 2 can hit (well it is an issue, but not a huge one), hitting the mineral line is a very big issue, since it is very hard to hold for Zerg players, since they rely on melee or short ranged units at the start and you can potentially deny the main from mining using 1 or 2 tanks and a few marines.

All the way back there though? Are you thinking of a drop later, or a 1base attack?

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

January 31 2014 05:07 GMT

#1956

Both, you use a drop to get them there and then for vision.

greenroom

United States20 Posts

February 01 2014 22:47 GMT

#1957

Trying to come up with a good map layout:

[image loading]

The playable size is around 164:164.

Main Features:
-Open middle
-Lots of small ramps to (hopefully) encourage breaking up deathballs
-3rd is easily harassed from the high ground
-Small path around the perimeter of the map, easily ambushed from the middle and sides

Any thoughts?

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

February 01 2014 22:50 GMT

#1958

Make the natural tighter and consider making one of the 3rd bases more defensible. The main has too much surface area for blink ins imo.

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

February 02 2014 06:13 GMT

#1959

@greenroom: Agreed with what TheFish7 said. Also, the map as a whole is too big. Try shrinking the playable size to around 140x140 or so and reducing the size of the main, nat, center high ground, and whatever else is necessary to fit everything in. And finally, the main ramps should be diagonal for walling purposes.

greenroom

United States20 Posts

February 02 2014 18:09 GMT

#1960

When you say to make the natural tighter, do you mean I should make the whole thing thinner or that I should just make the natural cliff less exposed? How would you go about doing that?

And thank you both for the feedback, it's appreciated! I'll see what I can change around.