[M] (4) Vector - Page 3

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.

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.

On October 31 2012 16:54 Bwaaaa wrote:
can the 3rd be seiged from the center?

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)

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.

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.

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).