|
On March 26 2015 11:14 EatThePath wrote:
If you do that change, taking the forward 3rd as a 4th base is too easy and powerful. You have it as a staging area for attacks MUCH closer to all of their new bases, and the walk distance to cover your old 3base is the closest possible of the choices of 4th. With e.g. a terran wall at the 3rd this is like the easiest way to establish or retake a winning position. You can even build the CC in the main and fly it ezpz. It's important that the ramp to mid be large so that holding that pod is a full time job. Which is unfortunate because it just underscores the lack of any strategic forward positions on this map.
Your 'issue' with a 'too strong forward fourth' already exists on this map with the central pod fourths. Don't let the large diagonal rocks fool you into thinking they make the base harder to take, as a 3 base army will destroy them in seconds. Once the rocks are down, you are left with essentially the 'problem' you just described. You'd have a fourth that makes for a super close staging point that covers your third, and you can even build the CC at the third and float it to the fourth ezpz. Just saying, the current forward fourth is exactly what you just described.
What this change would do is create a choice in the fourth base, making for more dynamic play. Each fourth would be viable, and each one exposes or defends different paths. Thus, making the map less boring and stuff.
As a side note, I would not consider that base a 'forward third' either. Maybe that was just a misnomer you used to describe the base, but even with Super's idea, the base could not be a reliable third.
|
I was considering removing the rocks on the center highground, along with the changes superouman suggested. Would make even more interesting the attacker pathways. Do you agree?
|
Honestly it doesn't even matter, I doubt if it's possible to convince blizz to use a different map file at this point. The current version is almost certainly what's going to be played in every case.
But I do agree with Superouman/Timetwister's suggestions.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
There is no chance of any changes being reflected in the ladder version.
|
On March 26 2015 14:04 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 11:14 EatThePath wrote:
If you do that change, taking the forward 3rd as a 4th base is too easy and powerful. You have it as a staging area for attacks MUCH closer to all of their new bases, and the walk distance to cover your old 3base is the closest possible of the choices of 4th. With e.g. a terran wall at the 3rd this is like the easiest way to establish or retake a winning position. You can even build the CC in the main and fly it ezpz. It's important that the ramp to mid be large so that holding that pod is a full time job. Which is unfortunate because it just underscores the lack of any strategic forward positions on this map. Your 'issue' with a 'too strong forward fourth' already exists on this map with the central pod fourths. Don't let the large diagonal rocks fool you into thinking they make the base harder to take, as a 3 base army will destroy them in seconds. Once the rocks are down, you are left with essentially the 'problem' you just described. You'd have a fourth that makes for a super close staging point that covers your third, and you can even build the CC at the third and float it to the fourth ezpz. Just saying, the current forward fourth is exactly what you just described.
It's not exactly the same at all, lol? And what's with the 'tude, bro?
What this change would do is create a choice in the fourth base, making for more dynamic play. Each fourth would be viable, and each one exposes or defends different paths. Thus, making the map less boring and stuff.
It could definitely use some changes so it's less boring, which is why I actually would rather see a version with your change. However, my observation was to point out that it leads to an imba map imo.
As a side note, I would not consider that base a 'forward third' either. Maybe that was just a misnomer you used to describe the base, but even with Super's idea, the base could not be a reliable third.
Well obv. Just a way of naming it.
To your actual point though, there is a world of difference between the two forward 4th locations. The game would have to be in an already lopsided state for the farther pod to be an "easy" 4th. Once there, it's good for attacking the enemy maincliff base and general center/XNT presence but it's strictly not as good as your own maincliff for attacking the other enemy expansion sites, due to distances. (This is immediately clear from the overview.) It also makes you more vulnerable by stringing you out instead of clumping you up. Moreover, the ground distance to guard your entrances is sooo much longer than if you're at the maincliff 4th.
I like choices of expos though and aggressive expanding and the map needs something to spice it up, so I'd rather have the change than not because I'm not a fan of the map anyway. It's an okay map and all, it's just a mildly improved Daybreak evolution with similar 5th base problems. Conventionally this is a bit anti zerg in a passive macro game but we have SH/spores now instead of BL/spines so mise.
|
Just to be clear about the main ramp bug , its an issue blizzard created and blizzard needs to fix it. I have no power there.
|
The space cliff transitions
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pg10LiL.jpg)
|
I have already noticed it. If you look at my version , I used a custom cliff which worked flawlessly.I cant believe how much the blizzard "mapmakers" have fucked up.
They're just incompetent , I have no faith in them anymore.
|
Maybe they are against the use of custom assets.
If they are, they can just place some Rock (Giant), variation 15 to hide the black squares
|
Afaik Echo uses custom textures for the terrain , mine was just a changed cliff texture ( from grey to a orange tint ).
|
On April 07 2015 04:41 IeZaeL wrote:
Afaik Echo uses custom textures for the terrain , mine was just a changed cliff texture ( from grey to a orange tint ).
Are you refering to the golden Castanar small tiles? Uvantak told me these are official but hidden textures like nilfheim
I just realized you didn't use space cliffs in the first place. That means some blizz guy intentionally switched them. wat
|
Are you sure ? I remember uvantak created the texture by himself. I might be wrong though.
Also the HotS version still has the orange cliff tint.
|
On April 07 2015 04:35 IeZaeL wrote:
I have already noticed it. If you look at my version , I used a custom cliff which worked flawlessly.I cant believe how much the blizzard "mapmakers" have fucked up.
They're just incompetent , I have no faith in them anymore.
Did you mail them about that ? Are we going to play Coda and Echo with blatant graphics issues ?
|
they dont listen. my skype conversation with Psione is one-sided , lots of messages by me and zero by him.
|
On April 07 2015 04:56 IeZaeL wrote:
they dont listen. my skype conversation with Psione is one-sided , lots of messages by me and zero by him.
That's really, really sad to hear. I hope those threads reach their eyes...
|
I'll tell you the truth. They wont reach their eyes.
|
At least the coda cliff problem is only in the LotV version and not the version that's going on ladder soon - hopefully it stays that way...
|
On April 07 2015 05:08 -NegativeZero- wrote:
At least the coda cliff problem is only in the LotV version and not the version that's going on ladder soon - hopefully it stays that way...
I wouldn't be so sure about that d:
|
What kind of twisted pleasure does a mapmaker feel when he creates a map with only 2 closer mineral patches ? You're STARVING on that map, just like on Expedition Lost or Vaani. Seriously, make maps with 3 closer patches at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
