[M] (2) TPW Match Point Hots

Post a Reply

Normal

Meerel

Germany713 Posts

March 19 2013 20:16 GMT

Hi,
i made a retexture/redoodad version of Match Point for Hots i hope you like it.

Overview:

General:
+ Show Spoiler +

Texture: Custom
Playable: 152x168
Expands: 10 + 2 small
Xel'Naga: 2

Pictures:
+ Show Spoiler +

isaachukfan

Canada785 Posts

March 19 2013 21:18 GMT

Even for sc2, I think that single ramp down from the natural is a bit too extreme, especially considering the is a xel naga tower over the other path. Maybe remove the towers so the third can actually be attacked into and ther is some skill required to defend the three bases.

Qwyn

United States2779 Posts

March 19 2013 21:38 GMT

How did you get the BW style cliff edges? That's amazing!

Yeah I think it would be good to remove towers and to make the natural ramp wider. Other than that looks really fun

Qikz

United Kingdom12027 Posts

March 19 2013 22:31 GMT

I think the natural ramp personally being that small is fine since you should be able to attack from the highground (from above the third) and it adds defenders advantage against all ins who try and rush up the ramp. You really should remove the towers though.

Qwyn

United States2779 Posts

March 19 2013 22:55 GMT

On March 20 2013 07:31 Qikz wrote:
I think the natural ramp personally being that small is fine since you should be able to attack from the highground (from above the third) and it adds defenders advantage against all ins who try and rush up the ramp. You really should remove the towers though.

That's true, good point. I can't get over how good the texturing is for this map (I don't know why I like it so much! Nostalgia blast!). I love, love the cliff edges.

Fewer/no towers is definitely something I would like to see that doesn't really happen. I don't know why map makers feel the need to put in towers just because they are there.

FlaShFTW

United States10354 Posts

March 19 2013 23:13 GMT

wider rampssss

i guess sc2 maps are smaller so thats where you compensated xD

thezanursic

5497 Posts

March 19 2013 23:17 GMT

Nice port! It looks really similar to the bw version.

TheAmazombie

United States3714 Posts

March 20 2013 01:27 GMT

Good deal. I am excited to try it. Match Point is still one of my favorite maps ever made. =)

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

March 20 2013 01:28 GMT

Nice cliffs. ^^

Could you move the towers back a little from the ramp? It's hard for defender to position units at the top of the ramp.

Mullet_Ben

United States54 Posts

March 20 2013 01:46 GMT

#10

As cool as those cliffs are, how do reapers and colossi look moving up and down them?

PineapplePizza

United States749 Posts

March 20 2013 04:15 GMT

#11

Why is a mineral-only not an option for SC2?

a176

Canada6688 Posts

March 20 2013 05:13 GMT

#12

can you up the other map?

Meerel

Germany713 Posts

March 20 2013 05:25 GMT

#13

On March 20 2013 10:46 Mullet_Ben wrote:
As cool as those cliffs are, how do reapers and colossi look moving up and down them?

i have no idea^^
gonna change the tower some tomorrow

ciox

58 Posts

March 20 2013 07:31 GMT

#14

Cool idea, looks like reapers and colossi will clip through some of those cliff doodads, but you will only have to make the doodads smaller and place more of them to fix that.

gronnelg

Norway354 Posts

March 20 2013 09:58 GMT

#15

Wouldn't this map be totally imba because of the narrow chokes, and generally lack of open spaces?
Loving the aesthetics though. Great BW look.

Edit: Imba primarly because of FF.

Qikz

United Kingdom12027 Posts

March 20 2013 10:22 GMT

#16

On March 20 2013 18:58 gronnelg wrote:
Wouldn't this map be totally imba because of the narrow chokes, and generally lack of open spaces?
Loving the aesthetics though. Great BW look.

Edit: Imba primarly because of FF.

That's not too much of an issue to be honest as it could just be a map for TvP, TvZ, PvP, PvT, TvT or ZvZ, not all maps have to be balanced for all the matchups and if they are it's usually quite a boring map.

Echoing what someone said before it'd be good to either remove the gas from the third and make it mineral only as it's so easy to take, or atleast make it a one gas expo with less minerals or something. It's so easy to hold that base.

EDIT: As I can't check right now, can you still nuke the fifth opposing players 5th bases from inside your main? I used to really like that about match point.

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

March 20 2013 13:55 GMT

#17

I think the 1x ramp at the fourth is unreasonable. Already taking that highground and that base makes your third much safer from air, but the fourth itself actually is very safe from air, so with the 1x ramp it's just also too safe from ground.

The 1x ramp at the nat is debatable. It makes three bases easier to defend, on the other hand it also makes defending against a sieged position on the nat harder. Not sure how exactly this would play out for all matchups.

KingCorwin

United States134 Posts

March 20 2013 18:32 GMT

#18

looks great terranlover. the cliffs are simply fantastic. and of course you know i love the textures :3
has very BW feel

Meerel

Germany713 Posts

March 20 2013 19:12 GMT

#19

how about making the 1size ramp to the fourth 3 and removing the towers completly?

Quakecomm

United States344 Posts

March 20 2013 20:28 GMT

#20

Nice map but where is it published?

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

March 20 2013 20:30 GMT

#21

If you're going to start widening ramps, you should also make all ramps to the high ground 4s. Right now it's a brutal chokepoint in large army terms. I don't know how much you are about the legacy of the BW map, but the high ground in the original was a place for 200/200 engagements. On your map, you'd be hard pressed to do anything useful going up a 3ramp at 200/200.

I like the narrowness of the top ramp to the 4th for emphasizing the high ground. I think there are better ways to alleviate the problem than widening it, which will just turn the map into another wack-a-mole army movement situation that is so familiar in other maps, or even force more reserved turtling. For example, you could make it unforcefieldable, unbuildable, etc...

Meerel

Germany713 Posts

March 20 2013 20:57 GMT

#22

On March 21 2013 05:28 Quakecomm wrote:
Nice map but where is it published?

FeyFey

Germany10114 Posts

March 20 2013 21:48 GMT

#23

I am curious how a siege would turn out if you manage to grab that towered high ground of your opponent. Simply attacking there sounds really tough though.
Will try the map later, thank you.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

March 21 2013 00:55 GMT

#24

Nice! The title set really looks like the BW version.

The mineral wall looks a bit different but I'm sure it functions the same way. I hope all of the small chokes everywhere don't cause too much trouble as far as balance goes.

Qikz

United Kingdom12027 Posts

March 21 2013 01:54 GMT

#25

On March 21 2013 04:12 Terranlover wrote:
how about making the 1size ramp to the fourth 3 and removing the towers completly?

Keep the one size ramp to the fourth, it's fine and adds some defenders advantage meaning a small force can stay back and defend the ramp (especially with like Blinding Cloud as zerg). Having defenders advantage is a good thing and it promotes people to split up their army as going up with every single unit (like on a 3 ramps do as you're not guarenteed to do super damage. It promotes a lot more positional play and less a-move up every ramp you see as there's no way you'll hold it. There's plenty of other ways to attack and other places to attack, having one expansion with good advantage to the defender isn't bad, especially when the natural can be sieged and the third isn't exactly super easy to defend.

Remove the towers though.

FlaShFTW

United States10354 Posts

March 21 2013 03:16 GMT

#26

remove towers on BW based maps. theres a reason the bw maps were successful without towers, you should keep it that way.

ramps still need widening. they were the pinnacle of where big push engagements were held. now, even trying to go up one with a big push = aoe just rips through that cluster fuck.

iKill

Denmark861 Posts

March 21 2013 09:45 GMT

#27

On March 20 2013 13:15 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Why is a mineral-only not an option for SC2?

all races are gas heavy in the midgame and lategame, so no one is going to take them.

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

March 21 2013 10:52 GMT

#28

On March 21 2013 12:16 FlaShFTW wrote:
remove towers on BW based maps. theres a reason the bw maps were successful without towers, you should keep it that way.

ramps still need widening. they were the pinnacle of where big push engagements were held. now, even trying to go up one with a big push = aoe just rips through that cluster fuck.

You seem to ignore the fact that this highground works completely differently in SC2 cos of the lack of highground advantages. I think Mereel was just trying to give the army on the highground an advantage with the tower and rather small ramps. Cos with huge ramps and no tower there is really no advantage whatsoever being on it, it's actually rly shit if it's too open (altho it's still in the perfect position to defend 4 bases).

On the other hand small ramps obviously also make it harder to attack down the highground, and that's actually the really idiotic thing about chokes as the only terrain advantage, they work both ways instead of giving only one side the advantage...

So imo the ramps should be wider, the tower should be kept and imo it would be good if that path down from the highground that makes a clockwise turn towards the centre (the one leading to the lowest lowground) is thin enough so that it would be kinda awkward to move up there with an army on the highground. Besides that and the tower there's nothing good to emulate advantage for that highground I guess... (fuck no highground advantage).