EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xYe6DOg.jpg)
Hello, I am here for the first time to upload.
I can't speak English well, please understand.
take care of a lot of advice
use to translate.google.com T T..
Map Size : 128 x 136
(2)Ice Valley
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
IRoha
Korea (South)81 Posts
Hello, I am here for the first time to upload. I can't speak English well, please understand. take care of a lot of advice use to translate.google.com T T.. Map Size : 128 x 136 | ||
|
IRoha
Korea (South)81 Posts
| ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
Some changes i would like to do : + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x3D9Qva.jpg) Yellow : Los blockers ( visual blockers) Red: larger path/ramp green: add rocks | ||
|
IRoha
Korea (South)81 Posts
 Red: larger path/ramp <- i think 6 gas to very difficult. so i use to rock. If remove the rock, entrance is wider Yellow : Los blockers ( visual blockers) , Green: add rocks <- I’ll think about it | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
That said, I think this map uses space and sets up pathing better (i.e. the map flows better). | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
the 3rd is difficult. i would much prefer if the ramps leading into the 3rds had rocks on them. it would be easier to hold that way and, well if they break down the rocks, gl. another change which would take a while and you might not like, is (im using the bottom base as the example) push the natural more to the 6 , push the current 3rd more to the 5, then take that 8 and bring it down with the main. here's my really shitty picture drawing of it. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CJdzq9m.png) as you can see, if you turn the 8 oclcok base into your 3rd, you now only have to defend 2 chokes because the ramp that leads into the base will effectively just join with the other path and make one choke instead of 2 to hold. contemplate it a bit. | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
Btw the 3rd can be tricky to hold but the 4th is really easy to get. | ||
|
IRoha
Korea (South)81 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 13 2014 18:35 FlaShFTW wrote: time for another FlaShFTW's take on the third because i'm a little bitch when it comes to these. the 3rd is difficult. i would much prefer if the ramps leading into the 3rds had rocks on them. it would be easier to hold that way and, well if they break down the rocks, gl. another change which would take a while and you might not like, is (im using the bottom base as the example) push the natural more to the 6 , push the current 3rd more to the 5, then take that 8 and bring it down with the main. here's my really shitty picture drawing of it. as you can see, if you turn the 8 oclcok base into your 3rd, you now only have to defend 2 chokes because the ramp that leads into the base will effectively just join with the other path and make one choke instead of 2 to hold. contemplate it a bit. I completely disagree with this assessment. Your suggestions boil down to being able to take 3 bases freely with no defensive investment, which I find ridiculous, as well as more heavily perpetrate the snowball effect of losing a base = losing the game. The design of the map already makes the bases fairly easy to take with little more than a bit of smart sim-city, while the bit of distance allows a player to actually be able to choose to abandon a third/fourth in favour of falling back to a better defensive position. I know I you consider yourself an authority on third bases, but to be honest your analysis is still stuck in early 2011, suggesting an over-reaction to the old situation where Protoss needed thirds to be incredibly close to their nats in order to reliably take them. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
Check your mineral lines, some of them look inefficient (mains, CCW thirds, golds). | ||
|
Genome852
United States979 Posts
| ||
|
IRoha
Korea (South)81 Posts
next time, make efficient mineral line.( I didn't know until you tell  ) | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
On August 14 2014 01:54 iamcaustic wrote: I completely disagree with this assessment. Your suggestions boil down to being able to take 3 bases freely with no defensive investment, which I find ridiculous, as well as more heavily perpetrate the snowball effect of losing a base = losing the game. The design of the map already makes the bases fairly easy to take with little more than a bit of smart sim-city, while the bit of distance allows a player to actually be able to choose to abandon a third/fourth in favour of falling back to a better defensive position. I know I you consider yourself an authority on third bases, but to be honest your analysis is still stuck in early 2011, suggesting an over-reaction to the old situation where Protoss needed thirds to be incredibly close to their nats in order to reliably take them. my analysis on thirds goes as follows: how many chokes lead to it, how big are said chokes, and how far is it from the natural. the distance is fine here, and the sizes of the chokes are ok as well, however the chokes are far too many as well as a gapping hole between natural and 3rd. take a look at overgrowth. you have one giant hole to the natural, much like this map, but you only have 1 choke to defend. this map requires you to defend 2 chokes. you then might argue that merry-go-round would be a crapping third to my estimations, but it isnt. as how im describing the act of combining 2 chokes into 1 on this map, taking a 3rd on merrygoround is the same, just reversed between natural and third. does simcitying help? yes, but then your buildings are still vulnerable, especially to a 3 pronged attack on this map. run units down the middle to distract while you sent 2 smaller contingencies to break down the simcity and push to the base. my 3rd analysis implies that the players will be smart in attacking them at multiple angles at the optimal way, not just bumrushing through trying to break a simcity. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 16 2014 17:57 FlaShFTW wrote: my analysis on thirds goes as follows: how many chokes lead to it, how big are said chokes, and how far is it from the natural. the distance is fine here, and the sizes of the chokes are ok as well, however the chokes are far too many as well as a gapping hole between natural and 3rd. take a look at overgrowth. you have one giant hole to the natural, much like this map, but you only have 1 choke to defend. this map requires you to defend 2 chokes. you then might argue that merry-go-round would be a crapping third to my estimations, but it isnt. as how im describing the act of combining 2 chokes into 1 on this map, taking a 3rd on merrygoround is the same, just reversed between natural and third. does simcitying help? yes, but then your buildings are still vulnerable, especially to a 3 pronged attack on this map. run units down the middle to distract while you sent 2 smaller contingencies to break down the simcity and push to the base. my 3rd analysis implies that the players will be smart in attacking them at multiple angles at the optimal way, not just bumrushing through trying to break a simcity. First paragraph: throwaway; different maps have different ways of securing resources. There isn't some singular, golden rule like there was in WoL, due to the increased flexibility in game design. Second paragraph: Merry-Go-Round's thirds are, arguably, "worse" than this map, as you also have the high ground to deal with as a defender (this plays out quite a bit in positional TvT), while on this map the defender gets the high ground. That's a big deal. Third paragraph: this whole theoretical scenario about a 3-pronged attack on the third is silly on a number of counts. First, if your opponent is setting up such a gigantic, coordinated attack and you don't know about it/aren't prepared, you made a massive mistake. Second, if you are prepared, then sim city to block off one or more entrances into the third is ideal, as it makes it much easier for you to shave down their army while 1/3rd of it is killing buildings to join the battle; it'd be a stupid decision on the attacker's part unless they're already way ahead (again, your mistake). Third, any attacker would be better off hitting different locations in a multi-pronged attack, which means you're more likely looking at hitting the main and third or something along those lines; splitting the army in such a manner makes the number of paths into the third moot. TL;DR: bum rushing a defended sim city from 3 angles(especially considering the design of this map) is incredibly stupid unless you're already way ahead. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10402 Posts
On August 17 2014 02:36 iamcaustic wrote: First paragraph: throwaway; different maps have different ways of securing resources. There isn't some singular, golden rule like there was in WoL, due to the increased flexibility in game design. Second paragraph: Merry-Go-Round's thirds are, arguably, "worse" than this map, as you also have the high ground to deal with as a defender (this plays out quite a bit in positional TvT), while on this map the defender gets the high ground. That's a big deal. Third paragraph: this whole theoretical scenario about a 3-pronged attack on the third is silly on a number of counts. First, if your opponent is setting up such a gigantic, coordinated attack and you don't know about it/aren't prepared, you made a massive mistake. Second, if you are prepared, then sim city to block off one or more entrances into the third is ideal, as it makes it much easier for you to shave down their army while 1/3rd of it is killing buildings to join the battle; it'd be a stupid decision on the attacker's part unless they're already way ahead (again, your mistake). Third, any attacker would be better off hitting different locations in a multi-pronged attack, which means you're more likely looking at hitting the main and third or something along those lines; splitting the army in such a manner makes the number of paths into the third moot. TL;DR: bum rushing a defended sim city from 3 angles(especially considering the design of this map) is incredibly stupid unless you're already way ahead. if you lose highground on merry-go-round, imo you're playing it wrong. you should be scouting that area so that they dont take that highground. back to simcities, you need to consider that it also hinders defending. while they're shooting your buildings, you need to somehow move your army closer to them through buildings. essentially, if you're not building long range units you're going to be screwed. which is why personally i dont like simcities but can understand why people use them. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 17 2014 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote: if you lose highground on merry-go-round, imo you're playing it wrong. you should be scouting that area so that they dont take that highground. back to simcities, you need to consider that it also hinders defending. while they're shooting your buildings, you need to somehow move your army closer to them through buildings. essentially, if you're not building long range units you're going to be screwed. which is why personally i dont like simcities but can understand why people use them. Really, you made an argument about an attacker establishing a full-on 3 angle attack on a third base with a map design like this, but think someone managing to acquire a singular high ground location is too much? Do you watch/play StarCraft? o_O You also grossly misunderstand the purpose of sim cities. They're designed to be a blockade; at a third base, it is the expectation that you will lose those buildings in a dedicated attack. You know what you don't lose? The base itself. You get the warning that you're being attacked, and the structures delay the attacker long enough to allow you into a better position when they break through. There's no reason to attack through your own sim city, especially with a map design like this. I highly recommend watching 2010/2011 GSL VODs, as sim city was much more prevalent due to its necessity to take naturals and thirds reliably. You'll get a much better understanding how to correctly utilize the concept. | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
| ||
| ||
