|
Well after a long while i have finished the Volume III maps, unlike in the Vol II this time i went full into texturing and doodads, so i hope you guys enjoy the pretty shots for the maps ^^
With nothing more to add, let's get started here:
Maps are published in:
[AM],[EU],[KR],[SEA]
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YN743hR.png)
Overview:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xmDOnw9.jpg)
Information/Analyser:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bkxOB7q.jpg) The analyser bugged out while saving the png, dunno why. Map size: 154x154
Eye Candy:
+ Show Spoiler +
Small info about the map:
+ Show Spoiler +
◙ Very short air distance between main bases.
◙ Not a very viable map for FFE.
◙ Once the early-mid game dust has settled the map opens and becomes easily split-able between the two players.
◙ The top right of the map (Huge crystals) is not path-able for Air units.
◙ Beware of drops!.
Changelog
+ Show Spoiler +
Ver 0.3.0
♦ No changes yet!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/riT2NcU.png)
Overview:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W3IhjM1.jpg)
Information/Analyser:
+ Show Spoiler +
Eye Candy:
+ Show Spoiler +
Small info about the map:
+ Show Spoiler +
◙ No Xel'naga watch tower.
◙ Open map yet not so much.
◙ Slightly short rush distances for the mid game (Nat to Nat)
◙ Center bushes gives an advantage for surprise flanks to smart players.
Changelog
+ Show Spoiler +Ver 0.2.13♦ Minor visual improvements. ♦ Fixed pathing around doodads at 3 o-clock main base. ♦ Old overview
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BNqViJE.png)
Overview:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4vdNpfN.jpg)
Information/Analyser:
+ Show Spoiler +
Eye Candy:
+ Show Spoiler +
Small info about the map:
+ Show Spoiler +
◙ Small droppeable low ground ledges at natural bases.
◙ Droppeable highground pods at center of the map.
◙ Destructible Xel'naga watch tower (1750 hp 3 armor, 750 shields that regen at 2 shields per second after 10 seconds of not have being attacked)
◙ Easy to take harder to defend third base (area to get a concave for the defender is smaller than for the attacker, unless the defender made a wall-off with buildings, and the defender can use the huge ramp close to the third to get big flanks).
◙ Mains highly exposed to Blink stalkers and Reapers.
Changelog
+ Show Spoiler +Ver 0.3.8♦ Changed the size of the central drop pods ♦ Fixed pathing issues ♦ Old Overview
|
No rock plates on the bottom of the ramp for the first map? You could put it exactly at the bottom if you want to allow walling off from both sides.
|
What's the point in destroying 2 lines of rocks at the same spot on the first map?
|
On October 18 2013 17:17 Phaenoman wrote:
What's the point in destroying 2 lines of rocks at the same spot on the first map?
Twice the HP, takes twice as long to destroy? That path massively reduces the nat-nat distance, the map would be broken if you could use it in the early game.
|
On October 18 2013 17:48 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:17 Phaenoman wrote:
What's the point in destroying 2 lines of rocks at the same spot on the first map? Twice the HP, takes twice as long to destroy? That path massively reduces the nat-nat distance, the map would be broken if you could use it in the early game.
Why not just increase the HP of one? But that's just for the look, nothing else would change.
2nd map is very nice btw :D
|
change of hp = lose melee tag
|
On October 18 2013 19:42 enord wrote:
change of hp = lose melee tag
Also because players are used to rocks always having 2000 hp. If you have 2 sets of rocks it's an actual visual indicator that it will take twice as long as normal to break through them.
|
On October 18 2013 20:07 -NegativeZero- wrote:Also because players are used to rocks always having 2000 hp. If you have 2 sets of rocks it's an actual visual indicator that it will take twice as long as normal to break through them.
This, this, this. As you said phaeno, it would be quite easy to make the rocks a bit bigger and add more HP to them, but that would create two problems, one is that by doing it i'm forcing the players to learn something really specific about the map (Hp and armor of the rocks), so i consider it to be better just to add two set of rocks instead, and the second one is not such a big deal, and is that if you see your opponent destroying the only rock that separates you from him you will go completely emergency mode, but if there are two sets of rocks it reduces the urgency of the rock destroying a bit (since there are two rocks), and it allows you to attack the enemy troops at the other side of the rock, actually, the map used to have three rocks there these huge diagonal ones and a 6x6 tugged between the two diagonal ones, that way it would delay the push even longer since the attacking player would have to destroy the first diagonal and then destroy the other two while taking damage from his opponent if he wanted to be in a relatively good position to engage.
On October 18 2013 12:16 moskonia wrote:
No rock plates on the bottom of the ramp for the first map? You could put it exactly at the bottom if you want to allow walling off from both sides.
It is because i just don't know which one will be the way the players will want to wall off if they open FFE, i have seen a shitload of different wall off options besides the ones i created for the map and by adding rocks i wouldn't cut a HUGE amount of wall off options but i would cut some pretty nifty ones, so yeah, if it proves to be problem (that until now it hasn't) i could add the rocks without problem.
|
Speaking of rush distances and the fact that its uncertain how to wall the natural especially as toss:
How about blocking the side of both naturals that are leading to the center with rocks and let the other side open?
- rush distance issue solved
- FFE will be easier/ possible
But if u want to let both sides open then forget about my suggestion :D
|
Well the thing is that in Crystal Empire there isn't a real problem with rush distances, 56 seconds from main to main is quite a good time, specially for maps where you can't wall off with ease, since the further distance the units have to travel the more damage you have to do to get any advantage from doing an aggressive build instead of a passive/economical one and the better prepared your opponent will be to defend that pressure, in the case of TvZ for example the longer the rush distance the weaker the Terran Bio units become at pressuring in early game, since the lings are faster and can pick off the reinforces of marines/marauders easily. But once the pressure has passed the Terran will lose map control to speedlings, until hellions/other form of map control is out, and since a single bunker +wall would not be able to hold in this map because of the two entries i added the collapsible rocks so terran can take those down and macro/tech up, without have to worry about defending 2 entries of banelings busts.
Most of the games do not develop exactly as i said but it gets the idea across :3
|
These maps look beautiful, as yours always do - will definitely be giving these a try.
|
Haha, thanks i try to give my best ♥
|
Yeah I'm not too sure about how the maps would play on, but they're definitely among the most gorgeous I've ever seen. Bravo !
|
Excellent maps. especially like the center of suenos pacificos
|
WoW thoses are good.
Did you try to make a mothership shape for the second map ? It looks like it.
I especially like the third map.
|
Mexico675 Posts
Time to submit your 2 best maps for the third TL Map Contest.
|
Germany475 Posts
Somehow the Map analyzer only shows 2 bases with mineral- patches for your third map, don't know what went wrong 
Besides that, I really like Map 2&3, especially Star Sapphire. There are not many 3 player maps out and this one looks great!
|
@Rude haha, no, that's how 3 players maps tend to come out, well no really, is more of a mothership core or this one
Thanks for the words guys, for the TLMC i choose to do a Re-skinned version of Foresta and Sueños Pacíficos, it was a very tough decision to leave Star Sapphire and Shilak Glacier out, but i feel that even if the map is beautiful and solid it may lacks the dynamic plays that i have seen in Foresta and the rush distances may favor Terran too much in a big ass tournament such as Red Bull, besides i don't know what are the plans of Reb Bull if they plan to change the maps each battle ground or to use them to eternity and beyond, so because of that i would rather submit a more standarish map that should hold time instead of a map with short rush distances designated to shake things a bit like korhal sky city did.
Love to all you all, except to those that will submit maps to the TLMC! (I want to win something damn it!)
|
On October 29 2013 20:09 Uvantak wrote:@Rude haha, no, that's how 3 players maps tend to come out, well no really, is more of a mothership core or this oneThanks for the words guys, for the TLMC i choose to do a Re-skinned version of Foresta and Sueños Pacíficos, it was a very tough decision to leave Star Sapphire and Shilak Glacier out, but i feel that even if the map is beautiful and solid it may lacks the dynamic plays that i have seen in Foresta and the rush distances may favor Terran too much in a big ass tournament such as Red Bull, besides i don't know what are the plans of Reb Bull if they plan to change the maps each battle ground or to use them to eternity and beyond, so because of that i would rather submit a more standarish map that should hold time instead of a map with short rush distances designated to shake things a bit like korhal sky city did. Love to all you all, except to those that will submit maps to the TLMC! (I want to win something damn it!)
Oh no the mothership mothership not the mothership core. I think it looks like it :p (and that's not a critic)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I kinda like the first map myself, though there are some issues like bases covering bases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OTJAvw5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tSDufAY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/91rnl41.png)
