EPT[M] (4) Vector - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20328 Posts
| ||
|
rrwrwx
United States247 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
ShowTheLights
Korea (South)1712 Posts
| ||
|
Drake Merrwin
Canada130 Posts
jks The problem with the 4th it takes 2 town halls for a player to get full gas income (they are pretty much mineral bases). Which won't really be a problem for zergs and in some cases terran. The point is that I worry for protoss players. They will think that they can't take a 4th. Toss have the hardest time expanding and this map won't help. Making those bases as golds would be good BUT REMOVE THE GAS. The problem with most golds is that they are just normal bases but better. If it's a mineral only, make it a good mineral only. That's all I got. Pretty sweet. GJ. | ||
|
Pucca
Taiwan1280 Posts
| ||
|
TR
2320 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 31 2012 05:38 Drake Merrwin wrote: OXYYYYYYY WTFFFFFF I am already making a map with mineral field walls. FUCK now people are going to think I am copying you. =( jks The problem with the 4th it takes 2 town halls for a player to get full gas income (they are pretty much mineral bases). Which won't really be a problem for zergs and in some cases terran. The point is that I worry for protoss players. They will think that they can't take a 4th. Toss have the hardest time expanding and this map won't help. Making those bases as golds would be good BUT REMOVE THE GAS. The problem with most golds is that they are just normal bases but better. If it's a mineral only, make it a good mineral only. That's all I got. Pretty sweet. GJ. You don't need two town halls because of the 2 depleted mineral patches. This lets you distance mine the other geyser, which would only require 5-6 workers... aka the same number of workers as having 3 standard geysers, the same amount of gas income. | ||
|
Bwaaaa
Australia969 Posts
| ||
|
SEEDPrebs
Norway30 Posts
| ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 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 thought for a long time about whether to use regular bases there. I wanted to push the boat out with this map and after careful consideration I felt there was enough to justify them. Firstly, they do make the rush distances in close positions slightly longer, but more importantly they limit attackers to only 1 attack path. That path is covered by the XNT, making controlling that area very important. It also helps alleviate the problem of Terrans taking centre bases in close positions with PFs (one of the problems with Entombed horizontal spawns). Overall I would say that this map is like the models you see advertising dating agencies. They are flashy, exciting and new, but at the end of the day are used to get you to buy in to a concept where you are ultimately paired with something more suitable. I know that this map is unlikely to see tournament play, so why should I reign in my ideas to make it tournament viable? Instead I decided to make a map that wasn't incredibly solid, probably wasn't going to stand the test of time, but did have a bunch of interesting features that excited people whilst hopefully not being exploitable. The map is still on the front page of screddit over a day after I submitted it with 2000+ upvotes so in terms of promotion for community maps, which was one of the things that I set out to do, I feel like 'job done'  . Plus I had a bunch of fun making it. Does anyone have further comment on the 4ths-as-golds idea? On October 31 2012 16:54 Bwaaaa wrote: can the 3rd be seiged from the center? No, I tested siege tanks all the way around the edge of the 3rd to make sure there is nothing too abusable. On October 31 2012 18:07 -Prebs- wrote: I just tested the map out in a custom game, and I really like the map! The only part i don't like is the low mineral patches at the "shared" base. The passageway wont be used unless you place the low mineral patches closest to the middle, simply because going through the middle is faster. (If they spawn horizontally) Glad you enjoyed the map. The low mineral patches are on the outside to give better access to the gas on the other side. It's not really meant as a 'secret passageway' | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
On November 01 2012 00:51 EatThePath wrote: I don't see what having them as gold offers. That would just skew towards mineral income unless you add geysers, which seems like a bad solution either way. They are plenty worthwhile just as an expansion away from the opponent in adjacent spawns, with an extra gas soon after the CC finishes. My main thinking was that golds are mined out faster, which opens up the route faster. It also means that terran don't have the same mining-out advantage that mules give you. 6 gold mins 1 high yield gas is also a more standard mins/gas ratio than 6 regular mins 1 hyg. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 01 2012 01:40 OxyGenesis wrote: My main thinking was that golds are mined out faster, which opens up the route faster. It also means that terran don't have the same mining-out advantage that mules give you. 6 gold mins 1 high yield gas is also a more standard mins/gas ratio than 6 regular mins 1 hyg. 6 standard mins 1hyg is 3/4 of a normal base. 6 gold mins would be skewed towards mineral income. However, you could also have a staircase distribution of minerals in the patches so that the base opens up and becomes progressively more mined out faster. Depends on what your goals are. Why do you want it to mine out more quickly? It's only 40% more quickly in the case of gold minerals anyway, which I don't think is fast enough to change the strategic incentives from how the map already plays (in my imaginings). | ||
|
OxyGenesis
United Kingdom281 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:31 EatThePath wrote: 6 standard mins 1hyg is 3/4 of a normal base. 6 gold mins would be skewed towards mineral income. However, you could also have a staircase distribution of minerals in the patches so that the base opens up and becomes progressively more mined out faster. Depends on what your goals are. Why do you want it to mine out more quickly? It's only 40% more quickly in the case of gold minerals anyway, which I don't think is fast enough to change the strategic incentives from how the map already plays (in my imaginings). You're right, I think my brain derped a bit on the min/gas ratio thing. However, with the high yield on the other side it does become comparable. I just think it would be more interesting if the paths were opened up more quickly, how often is a 4th mined out? | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Trasko
Sweden983 Posts
| ||
|
Incomplet
United Kingdom1419 Posts
| ||
|
Rukis
United States252 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
That's a big part of the map's aesthetic appeal, the unexpected but kind of cool magenta lava, and the huge contrast between it and the dark tileset | ||
| ||
