[M] (4) Vector

On October 30 2012 21:16 Shkudde wrote:
I just played a game on it, if you go for a old-school gate-core wall at your ramp that looks like there's a zealot-gap left it actually closes of the whole ramp. Spawned bottom right, will check if the other ramps have the same problem. Probably has to do with the lamp-post doodad at the ramp.

Edit: both bottom bases have this problem, the top bases are good. Otherwise the map looks and feels good

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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).