I wanted to try and make a good standard map but change it up a bit with the third/fourth. Also messed around with the XWT positioning and finally decided on none and I think it works pretty well here. The highground about the fifth is undroppable, is that clear enough?

Not currently uploaded
Bounds: 152x112
Expansions: 6 8m2g, 2 6m1g

Overview:

Closeups: + Show Spoiler +

The aesthetics still need some work, possible update in the future

Feedback is welcome as always.

Visage814

United States109 Posts

February 16 2013 09:14 GMT

undroppable...? that's a thing?

KingCorwin

United States134 Posts

February 16 2013 15:32 GMT

map looks fantastic! A+ on the texturing. A little sparse on doodads but the texturing compensates for that pretty well.

Targe

United Kingdom14103 Posts

February 16 2013 15:33 GMT

The texturing seriously screws with my eyes but other than that it looks cool, not sure what you mean by undroppable though.

algue

France1436 Posts

February 16 2013 16:01 GMT

Isn't the main too small ?

Kmatt

United States1019 Posts

February 16 2013 16:35 GMT

On February 16 2013 18:14 Visage814 wrote:
undroppable...? that's a thing?

On February 17 2013 00:33 Targe wrote:
The texturing seriously screws with my eyes but other than that it looks cool, not sure what you mean by undroppable though.

It means there's no unit pathing on the ground there, so a dropship given a drop command there will move to the low ground to unload or give an error message.

To make this more clear, you may want to stick some doodads up there so it doesn't look like pathable terrain.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 16 2013 17:51 GMT

The 5/6/11/12 bases are too close together and unnecessary imo. I think this map would be much stronger, and would leave this problem behind, if you removed the 6/12 bases and resituated the 1/7 bases towards the average of the two (where there is currently airspace). This would force players to take the lefthand 3rd if they want a full base, which really plays up the middle of the map and the narrow entrances to that base. Standing on your ridge you defend the 3rd except for the small ramp, and you can watch the middle in case they try to move to the large high ground to attack your natural. It becomes a much more dynamic and positional game. But, a conservative player can still take the small 3rd and defend form outside the natural. By moving the 1/7 bases further away, it puts a much more proportional map control / position cost on having 7.5 geysers.

Those should be high yield geysers btw, or is there a reason you don't want hyg?

WniO

United States2706 Posts

February 16 2013 17:55 GMT

get rid of the orange sand. its too much contrast. i like the variety of the textures but, i would make each cliff level only a few or 1 basic texture instead of the overlap since its hard to tell where one starts and the other ends.

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

February 16 2013 19:34 GMT

On February 17 2013 02:51 EatThePath wrote:
The 5/6/11/12 bases are too close together and unnecessary imo. I think this map would be much stronger, and would leave this problem behind, if you removed the 6/12 bases and resituated the 1/7 bases towards the average of the two (where there is currently airspace). This would force players to take the lefthand 3rd if they want a full base, which really plays up the middle of the map and the narrow entrances to that base. Standing on your ridge you defend the 3rd except for the small ramp, and you can watch the middle in case they try to move to the large high ground to attack your natural. It becomes a much more dynamic and positional game. But, a conservative player can still take the small 3rd and defend form outside the natural. By moving the 1/7 bases further away, it puts a much more proportional map control / position cost on having 7.5 geysers.

Those should be high yield geysers btw, or is there a reason you don't want hyg?

I would have to disagree with just about everything here except for the hyg comment. Where I am not a fan of half base thirds, I will say that the design of the fourth/full third needs to stay as is for any sort of chance of the half base third concept to work. Additionally, having those two bases close together are just fine since they are late game bases. Since the half base third promotes a longer midgame, having lategame bases that close to one another is fine here. Normally it would be bad because it makes for slow and turtley late game situations, but with the lategame hopefully being delayed with third design, this should not be the case.

As for the map, it is a very creative design and take on the half base third concept. Hopefully it turns out well, though I have my doubts. The aesthetics are way too busy, and I really don't like them. That might be painful to hear considering just how much work it took to cut everything out, but we all come across that time when we have to entirely redo aesthetics on a map. I would certainly recommend such here.

Aircooled

United States79 Posts

February 16 2013 22:24 GMT

#10

Ill stick some some doodads up there then I just got lazy with them. The main might be a little cramped with 11 rax but I think it's fine, I'll double check though. As for aesthetics, as said in closeups, I was aware they might be a problem and will change the ridge, Timetwister said it best, I just didn't want to change it after a certain point. I'm split between EatThePath's point and Time's: while I definetley agree with Time in the sense that the third/fourth need to stay how they are, as that's the point of the map (midgame is def the most exiting to me), I agree that the expansion progression should lean a bit more vertically to make better use of the attack paths. I just think there might be a better way to do that than change the third/fourth. Yea the geyser should be hyg, thanks.

KingCorwin

United States134 Posts

April 08 2013 12:58 GMT

#11

can you release a small pic of the textures you used in this? I love them so much

Callynn

Netherlands917 Posts

April 08 2013 13:58 GMT

#12

On February 17 2013 07:24 Aircooled wrote:
The main might be a little cramped with 11 rax but I think it's fine, I'll double check though.

You could just make the low ground deser into additional main area and make it pathable again to allow for a little more room for buildings. Perfect spot for artillery unit position to defend the nat as well