EPTI would like to report something though. As a terran, you can make very early sneaky attacks from a 4th base - out of range of any xel'naga - simply by throwing one mule one one of the mineral patches while moving the army through. The 21 minerals just aren't enough to block any terran attack.
[M] (4) Vector - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Dunedune
France15 Posts
I would like to report something though. As a terran, you can make very early sneaky attacks from a 4th base - out of range of any xel'naga - simply by throwing one mule one one of the mineral patches while moving the army through. The 21 minerals just aren't enough to block any terran attack. | ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
On October 30 2012 22:03 Dunedune wrote: Very creative, loved it. I would like to report something though. As a terran, you can make very early sneaky attacks from a 4th base - out of range of any xel'naga - simply by throwing one mule one one of the mineral patches while moving the army through. The 21 minerals just aren't enough to block any terran attack. Yeah, I have actually changed this already, but haven't uploaded the change. Those patches are now 42 mins. | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
 | ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
I feel like the shared fourth is really creative, but I kind of worry that it'd be an absolute shitfest on zerg just because the minerals form an actual wall. If it were rotated so the mineral field is on the vertical and against the wall instead of forming a horizontal wall, it'd still be a shared base with two ramps, but you wouldn't have to worry about balance problems from ranged units just bombing down on workers. I don't know. I really like it though. | ||
|
Shkudde
Netherlands709 Posts
On October 30 2012 22:02 OxyGenesis wrote: Bah, I always forget to turn off some doodad footprints. Thank you very much for the heads up, will fix this soon! How was the fps on your machine? This is my main worry atm. My PC is shit (el-cheapo dual-core thing, don't even know what's in there :p) so I don't know how much that influenced things, but I did notice pretty much constant choppiness. No major spikes, just constant lower FPS. Edit: To clarify, I play the game on low/medium settings to minimize performance-issues, and usually don´t have any FPS problems while playing 1v1. | ||
|
Ariuz
Germany39 Posts
really creative map, good job! | ||
|
QXC_Fanboy
United States35 Posts
| ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
When clicking a mule to land on a mineral field they always land on the same side of the mineral patch(cant remember which side) which makes muling impossible in some positions while okay in others. If you spam several mules though they land on either side of the mineral patch causing some to be on the right side and some to take the long way around. The only solution I could find was to land the mules next to the mineral field, wait for them to land and then click them on to the mineral patch afterwards. That consumes not only APM but time as well which every terran will hate you for. Hopefully a prober solution to this problem can be found so this type of base is fully functional. | ||
|
Bijan
United States286 Posts
On October 30 2012 23:45 Archvil3 wrote: Lots of good stuff to be said about the map. There is one great concern though about the 4th bases. I tested out the functionality of that type of base awhile ago and mules became a big problem that I couldnt find a good solution to. Simply, they tend to land on the wrong side of the mineral wall making them take the long way around to the cc, wasting a lot of their time. When clicking a mule to land on a mineral field they always land on the same side of the mineral patch(cant remember which side) which makes muling impossible in some positions while okay in others. If you spam several mules though they land on either side of the mineral patch causing some to be on the right side and some to take the long way around. The only solution I could find was to land the mules next to the mineral field, wait for them to land and then click them on to the mineral patch afterwards. That consumes not only APM but time as well which every terran will hate you for. Hopefully a prober solution to this problem can be found so this type of base is fully functional. I don't have a problem with this "imbalance". It's something Terrans could account for and try to avoid using mules on those patches if they can help it. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wo41x.jpg) like I did on my map jam map a few days ago I don't think mules would bug out, because there's only 1 side they can really land on. Would need to test that to be 100% sure, but I think it's less likely to bug. | ||
|
Andwhy
United States91 Posts
On October 31 2012 00:04 Bijan wrote: I don't have a problem with this "imbalance". It's something Terrans could account for and try to avoid using mules on those patches if they can help it. Yeah I wouldn't really worry about that as the mapmaker, for as long as terrans know about it, they can adjust to it. I like a map that pushes players to adjust their play, and having a mule walk around really isn't that big of an adjustment. For example, just mule the 2 outer mineral patches. Then, even if they land on the wrong side, there is hardly any additional walk. | ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
One change I am thinking of is changing the 4ths to gold bases. This will hopefully reward those wanting to go to 4 bases, 6 gold min patches and 1 high yield gas is also a more standard mineral configuration. It also means that the patches would be mined out faster, yet mules would mine them at the same rate. Thoughts? | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Of course, one thing to combat this kind of thing is actually land the mule on the ground, then click the mineral patch. More APM but it's fool-proof | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
| ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
Looks great and has a neat concept, but you can't have half bases as the only expo opportunity past the 3rd. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I think with this kind of base layout, everyone thinks tanks, tanks, tanks. But infestors can fungal a mineral line to devastating effect, as can HT's storm, so I think each race has something pretty good in that situation. | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
On October 31 2012 02:15 Fatam wrote: To be fair, I think they are high yield gases, so that makes up for it a bit. 6 mineral patches (since 2 of them are only 42 minerals) + 1 hyg is proportional, so shouldn't favor Terran (at least not as far as money goes). I think with this kind of base layout, everyone thinks tanks, tanks, tanks. But infestors can fungal a mineral line to devastating effect, as can HT's storm, so I think each race has something pretty good in that situation. Yeah, I mentioned them being high yield gases, but i think it would be better to have half bases as an option rather than a necessity. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 31 2012 02:12 lorestarcraft wrote: I am really concerned about the lack a second gas at the 4th or 5th bases. I know it is high yeild, but it is still not as good as having 2 regular geysers. This would lead to terran being way too strong. Not to mention it is rife for tank play. Looks great and has a neat concept, but you can't have half bases as the only expo opportunity past the 3rd. You can mine out the small patches and put another CC down on the far side to get a second high yield gas, or you can just long distance mine it with 5 workers. I think you've got your gas needs covered. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On October 31 2012 01:14 OxyGenesis wrote: Thanks for the comments everyone. The mule issue I don't think is too bad, the depleted mins will mean that they can get around. The turtley 3rd issue isn't quite as acute as some are suggesting I feel. It slightly depends on whether you spawn cross or close. I've also tried to give attackers a lot of options and generally balance attack and defence. I do share the concerns, but I want to see how it plays out in it's current form before changing it. One change I am thinking of is changing the 4ths to gold bases. This will hopefully reward those wanting to go to 4 bases, 6 gold min patches and 1 high yield gas is also a more standard mineral configuration. It also means that the patches would be mined out faster, yet mules would mine them at the same rate. Thoughts? Not a good idea. It straight up benefits some races more than others. For instance, in ZvP a zerg will likely take the gold (because he can) whereas a Protoss can't expand there (nor will he get much benefit from it). You could look at making the thirds 5m/1g as to weaken the strength of holding the first three bases though? On the fourths, I don't see any good reason why they are the way they are. Yes it's a cute novelty. But what does it really add to this map? Nothing, is what. Unit movement through that path once the minerals are cleared is slower than going through the mid so already is a situational path (think entombed valley side corridors situational). The increased 'harassability' of the base because of having two sides isn't really a good feature when you're trying to discourage 3 base play that is compounded by the fact each side only gets one gas. Moreover there are already two paths to your opponent if you need alternate routes. I would change those into a regular base tucked against the side of the map. That is far more likely to begin to alleviate the turtle on three base problem. | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
On October 31 2012 04:00 Plexa wrote: Not a good idea. It straight up benefits some races more than others. For instance, in ZvP a zerg will likely take the gold (because he can) whereas a Protoss can't expand there (nor will he get much benefit from it). You could look at making the thirds 5m/1g as to weaken the strength of holding the first three bases though? On the fourths, I don't see any good reason why they are the way they are. Yes it's a cute novelty. But what does it really add to this map? Nothing, is what. Unit movement through that path once the minerals are cleared is slower than going through the mid so already is a situational path (think entombed valley side corridors situational). The increased 'harassability' of the base because of having two sides isn't really a good feature when you're trying to discourage 3 base play that is compounded by the fact each side only gets one gas. Moreover there are already two paths to your opponent if you need alternate routes. I would change those into a regular base tucked against the side of the map. That is far more likely to begin to alleviate the turtle on three base problem.I concur with these comments | ||
| ||
