EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/scC2kj6.jpg)
Officially uploaded to [SEA] [NA] [EU] [KR]
Map Details
Name DF Graveside RE
Version 2.0 (20/01/2015)
Bounds 132x132
Bases 10 Normal Yield
Rocks 3 Sets
Towers Nil
Eye Candy
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WyCs6aW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/onB2N1X.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vngYl4K.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2EQppoM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6bPA7A0.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
not quite new, eh?
[M](2) Graveside
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
Name DF Graveside RE Version 2.0 (20/01/2015) Bounds 132x132 Bases 10 Normal Yield Rocks 3 Sets Towers Nil | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12025 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
I think you have 3 bases really too easy, either make the in-base expo a half base or make the 3rd much harder somehow. If you choose to keep it this way then you will see a lot of passive games, especially in PvZ. I think a cool solution would be to make the in-base expo semi blocked by creep, sort of like the one that was on that kespa map with all the rocks, you can just use a nydus worm to do it. | ||
|
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
But! i must agree with the guys and say that these rocks at the 3/9 bases should be at the inside natural instead, i think you put those rocks there in fear that a player may camp the lowground while having a wall at the natural and stay on four bases all the time, but by that time the opposing player could harass the main and inside natural of the camping player without much problems forcing him to burn resources into defenses for his main and inside base, so yeah, i would switch the rocks from the 3/9 bases into the inside base instead. Also damn this map is pretty. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
I don't think the plates at the bottom of the ramp are too important. If they wall you into 2 bases that's not nearly as bad as being walled into 1 base, and it might actually be nice to see that as a way to punish a fast 3rd. I also don't understand the rocks at the 4th. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
| ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3imOv87.jpg) Changes: There is a rocked entrance to the in-base natural expansion. (2x ramps). The 3/9 o'clock bases have had their ramp directions changed. Proposed Changes: Perhaps will add a 1x ramp back door to the 1 & 7 o'clock bases. Pull back the ramp at the 3 & 9 o'clock bases to widen the path to the 2 & 8 o'clock bases. Thoughts? | ||
|
meatpudding
Australia520 Posts
I feel like the 'other' natural is pretty defensible too. Since you can only approach via the one ramp or a long choke, any kind of poke would be risky. Once all rocks are cleared the dynamic changes completely though. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On October 29 2013 21:35 eTcetRa wrote: Proposed Changes: Perhaps will add a 1x ramp back door to the 1 & 7 o'clock bases. Pull back the ramp at the 3 & 9 o'clock bases to widen the path to the 2 & 8 o'clock bases. Thoughts? No to the new backdoor, yes to the wider path | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On November 03 2013 04:21 iamcaustic wrote: I like the concept of the backdoor to make 3 base economy less of a freebie, but not the execution. With the current version, we're looking at a backdoor that's faster to reach than the normal entrance. This ends up getting really weird, Blistering Sands style. Not as bad as that map, naturally, but along the same lines. Blistering sands had a problem where the distance between the entrance of the nat and the backdoor (of the same player) were way WAY closer on the outside than the inside. That doesn't exist here. The fact that the backdoor is closer to the opponent's nat than the front door isn't really an issue. It fact considering the natural is actually towards the backdoor ramp it's actually closer to standard. The small front main ramp acts more like the back door once the rocks are down. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 03 2013 04:26 Gfire wrote: Blistering sands had a problem where the distance between the entrance of the nat and the backdoor (of the same player) were way WAY closer on the outside than the inside. That doesn't exist here. The fact that the backdoor is closer to the opponent's nat than the front door isn't really an issue. It fact considering the natural is actually towards the backdoor ramp it's actually closer to standard. The small front main ramp acts more like the back door once the rocks are down. The distance thing is why this isn't as bad as Blistering (I thought that was obvious) and why I labelled it weird instead of broken. EDIT: Elaborating more... my biggest issue is that attacking the rocked path becomes the faster choice, and as a defender you end up with a bigger ramp into the main to defend. It's awkward from a defensive standpoint. Not the end of the world, methinks, but I'm not sold on it being the most direct attack path. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 05 2013 15:01 Gfire wrote: Having the backdoor sort of turn into the front door doesn't seem like a problem to me. I thought that was cool on Blistering Sands. Whether it's a problem (I'm assuming you mean balance issue) or not is something for play testing to help determine. I was just saying I don't like it in the same way you think it's cool.  Kinda the same reason I don't like Polar Night that much; maps that muck with the fundamentals in a way that doesn't seem to serve much purpose nor affect the meta game. Not the end of the world like I said before, but I'm still meh on the execution. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
http://drop.sc/371041 | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
| ||
| ||
