|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pIw63.jpg)
Vector
by OxyGenesis
150x150 | Published on EU & NA
![[image loading]](http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7654/vector60.png)
+ Show Spoiler [Overview (high res)] +
I spent way too long on this one. This will probably be my last map in a little while due to IRL stuff. I came up with the layout a while ago but as I made it it became more and more experimental, it got to the point where I went 'fuck it, lets go full retard' and this is the result.
The main and nat are fairly standard, the main is quite large but is easily defended against reapers and blink stalkers, drops could be tricky though. The nat choke is 9 wide and there are a few different ways of walling off. The 3rd is just a stones throw from the nat but is quite open, the LoS blockers between the 2 should promote smart play, I especially see zerg players using them to help get surrounds. Controlling the area between the 3rds is very important, especially in close positions. The XNTs provide vision of the main attack path and the route to avoid them is very long so controlling them is especially important. The 4th is essentially a 6m1hg expansion as 2 of the mineral patches only contain 42 mins, this makes defending the base a bit easier (you units can get through to the other side of the minerals without having to go right around). It also means that you can take the high yield gas on the other side, but it will take a lot of workers to saturate (gives you some interesting min/gas decisions in late game). Overall I tried to keep the attack paths quite wide as I was worried that the restrictive XNTs and relatively short rush distances could be hard for zerg. I also tried to give each base a distinct feel and phase to the game. Hopefully I have designed some unique features that smart players will be able to use to their advantage, I know that it is unlikely to be perfectly balanced but as I said, fuck it.
Aesthetics
1990 Doodads
HotS textures with wrl's Odin cliffs.
+ Show Spoiler [Aesthetics] +
High Level Replays
http://drop.sc/269506
|
This is pretty awesome. Those expos are really similar to what I did in my map jam map, I guess wise minds.. :-P
Aesthetics are obviously great. Normally I would hate you for pink, but it kind of works.
Looks like fun, I don't see any balance probs with it at first glance, other than resources get a bit scarcer when you get 4+ bases. But that may be more of a good thing than bad.
edit: the other interesting thing to note - you can be an aggressive "come at me!" asshole and expand towards your opponent at the 4th inbetween your spawns (assuming not cross-spawn), especially if terran w/ a planetary + tanks. Or you can expand away from them. And if you are cross-spawn, the game can play out differently if you both expand left or right, vs if you expand in different directions.
|
Loving the aesthetics, it is gorgeous
|
The layout's pretty cool, reminds me of Johanaz's old map Green Harvest, in a sort of the-geysers-on-this-map-work-weirdly kinda way. The thing I like most about it though is its uniqueness, which is hard to do with a rotational map. This still has the same pseudo-reflectional balance that Whirlwind and co. have, but it's designed differently and thus feels fresh. I like it.
I'm also impressed with the aesthetics, you can put out some really awesome stuff when you work at it :D
|
not sure how well people will receive such an open third, but in general i like it. hopefully you can get in on NA
|
I think a 3rd in that position can be more open than the norm, because that is exactly where you will have your army sitting. You can defend your nat and 3rd from that position. Whereas on something like daybreak (and most maps), the third choke is in a different spot completely from the nat choke.
The only thing about that type of mineral line (which is fine, I think) is that players have to be on top of their worker rally point. If you keep the rally on one side of the minerals or the other, the workers will all stack on that side and won't auto-distribute to the other side.
|
|
|
That's truly some of the best texturing I have seen so far,
|
I really like it. I wonder how balanced it is though, considering you can be sieged by air at your 3rd while being attacked from both sides. I love how the 90/180/270/360 minerals are positioned as well, would like to see some feedback on the map balance wise.
|
Send me map so i can upload on NA :D
|
What I like about the 3rd is that it's not impossible to take a quick 3rd there, but can be denied by smart 2base play without it being all-in for either player. Then there's the option of the "away" small 3rd base with the unique mineral wall vulnerability, which gives players yet another option for strategizing.
Basically this map looks sick as fuck. Get it on NA asap plz.
|
These aesthetics are drop-dead amazing, and are certainly inspirational. However, I can't say I like the layout so much. The fourths are awesome, and I really think more mappers need to mess with mineral layouts such as that. It's the third that I really....really don't like.
Stick your army in one spot, and you don't have to worry about a thing. Sure the third is super open, but that does not change the fact that deathball-turtling-3 base play is encouraged on this map, and I really don't like that. If you're going to have the natural lead right into the third like this, there really should be other ways to put pressure on your opponent. As of now, things like blink or elevator play is not possible with the main. Drops in the nat are nearly pointless since the main army should be right there at the third. Drops in the main are possible but only from one direction, which is not only easy to predict but also spawn dependent.
Thus, I feel this map is going to provide some slow turtling macro games. Of course, there isn't anything really wrong with that as far as balance goes. I personally just prefer maps that allow for more aggression to be possible.
|
If it's too turtley you could
- make a backdoor to the nat via the 4th (the 4th that's on the natural side, obviously) blocked by debris. You'd have to shift the nat mineral line position a bit (and probably move the main ramp slightly) but that's np
- increase the blink surface area on the main a bit (e.g. if you were looking at the bottom right spawn, turn some of the lava on the north side of the main into land so that blink/reapers can get in from there w/out running into an army parked at the 3rd.)
|
I strongly dislike that third location. It is much to easy to defend 3 bases with it being where it is.
4th is interesting, it is like a half base, but eventually you will get another gas. Not sure if I like it, need to play on it first.
Other then that, map looks awesome, but the pink is killing my eyes.
|
Really eclectic, gonna try it out asap
|
Very very good looking.
No idea about the balance, I'd like to play it on NA =)
|
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 
|
51602 Posts
LOVE the design of the 4th bases, it harks back to Outsider/Outlier from BW.
|
On October 30 2012 21:24 GTR wrote:
LOVE the design of the 4th bases, it harks back to Outsider/Outlier from BW.
Looked that map up as I had never seen it before but I love the concept of that shared mineral line. I am imagining terran muling the hell out of it, and creating another attack path, really interesting design.
|
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
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.
|
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 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.
|
I think that's a positive rather than a negative - especially with how easy third bases are there 
|
I really like it. I wish the space texture was something else, but thats okay.
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.
|
On October 30 2012 22:02 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
|
love the 4th base desing, reminds me of broodwar!
really creative map, good job!
|
I can see the ridge near the third being hell for TvT, but it's better than Tal'darim!!
|
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.
|
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.
|
not to toot my own horn too much but if you did the wall like this -
![[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.
|
On October 31 2012 00:04 Bijan wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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?
|
I think it could be a tiny bit of an issue - if you were planning to move through there @ a certain time but then your mules landed on the wrong side in order to clear the 42 mineral patches, then they wouldn't get cleared and you'd have to wait.
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
|
Best looking lava map ever created. Given that Blizz is so desperate to include a lava map on ladder, I think they would give this one community map special consideration if only it had ordinary min/gas layouts.
|
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.
|
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 02:15 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 31 2012 04:00 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I concur with these comments
|
United Kingdom20328 Posts
|
|
|
Pink, what a bold aesthetic choice!
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Wow really nice looking map!
|
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.
|
can the 3rd be seiged from the center?
|
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 October 31 2012 04:00 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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'
|
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 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.
|
On November 01 2012 01:40 OxyGenesis wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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).
|
On November 01 2012 04:31 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:40 OxyGenesis wrote: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. 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?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
You could turn it into an Entombed Valley side base. i.e. make the base normal but have rocks on both ramps. Would mean that the paths are opened significantly quicker.
|
Loving this design! saw it on reddit, had to play it
|
Sexy map. A few tweaks and I would love to see this in tournament.
|
Could you be so kind to see what the map would be like with water instead of lava?
|
What would be the point of that
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9ALXP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5w2nj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cJkYE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O2Yj2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hLCUI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mj6ac.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iV0t4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vRzZV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9aAIY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h5tNb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ciaMp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jYluz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dnDFa.jpg)
