EPT[M] (2) Outlander - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
-IAEVAI-KolosS
Canada60 Posts
| ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
A) How it's laid out makes it very prone to harass which means attacking is always going to be better which means you'll see a ton of aggression on the map. You're either going to make a bunch of drops, make units to take down rocks or abuse the long (and clumsy) rotation times of the defender. B) The out of base natural is waaaaay too open so you're forced to take the pocket expansion which is not only super long to get to and defend (back to point A) but you then need to defend a bunch of rocks (sure one way is double blocked by rocks) but you also need to defend your front entrance. Until you take down your own rocks in your base the rotation time to go from your inbase rocks to your front ramp would be impossible to defend. How would you hold 3 base when the defender can ping pong between your inbase natural & outbase natural in about 5 seconds and it'll take you ~30 (~15 once you take rocks down)? I believe re-designing the out of base natural to make it more easily obtainable would be the best way to do it. You then don't have to worry about it being a "free easy 3 base map" because you'd still have to ping pong between your inbase & outbase naturals but it would still be a little easier to defend since walling off would be easier. C) As for the rest of the map, I really feel you need to choke up the middle a bit more but open up all the edges a bit. It looks like an absolute nightmare for zerg because of how choked off it is around every base (also point A & B) which means it should be a veto for zerg the majority of the time and when zergs can't veto it they will get picked apart by bio/tank/lib and/or just the good ol' toss deathball since there isn't really any good places to surround besides the middle. --- I'm sorry that it is basically nothing but negative feedback! There are plenty of maps you've created that I do enjoy, unfortunately, this is not one of them. <3 =) | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
You have 3 options, either a) defend by being very aggressive yourself (i.e. keep him at home) b) spend your army's initial time killing the rocks, which doesn't take too long and makes the nat quite easily defendable, but it does give your opponent some liberty to do whatever in the background c) just YOLO it for a little while until killing the rocks is more convenient and possibly get picked apart or d) in certain matchups it is fine to take the open natural instead of the in-base. But not all, for sure. Whether this is good design and interesting gameplay or imbalanced is hard to say without some real games on it I think. It's doing things that haven't really been tested in SC2 yet, at least not exactly like this. I do think it really makes the in-base rocks super important, which is a good thing; they would be a dumb inclusion if they didn't matter. I can't see taking them out because then the whole in-base natural is really questionable, whereas right now I think it's the defining interesting feature of the map. Also consider some unorthodox expo strategies here, such as (assuming you're bottom left spawn) taking the in-base nat and immediately killing your in-base rocks and backdoor rocks, then taking a third at the 6:30 asap. Especially doable as Terran since you can pre-build your CC. Your travel distance in order to defend all possible attack points isn't too bad, and one of those attack spots is a 1FF ramp that is facing away from the middle. Also expanding that way you're pretty much immune to all air harass which is important with a 3 base turtle-ish strat. I don't really see the "nowhere to get a surround" comment either, there's plenty of surround spots around the bases that zerg would probably take. i.e. the 10 o'clock base, the open nat. Also it's pretty hard in most cases for a large army to NOT go through the middle, unless they wanna go around the edge and kill multiple rocks. In general I think zerg could do better than you think here, there've been lots of maps historically that people have initially been like "oh god zerg will veto the shit out of this" and then zerg turned it into a good zerg map. Of course I could be wrong. Also, I don't think making the out-of-base natural option more closed-off is a good idea since it makes zerg worse which is what you were just concerned about. I commonly use your feedback but here I think I'll use some restraint, since making those kinds of changes would make it a completely different map with a different philosophy (and obviously this one is trying to break the meta, not conform) and if I want to make that map I'd rather just leave this one and make a new one. But please don't stop giving feedback since I usually agree with it  also sorry for wall of text, I get very far down the rabbit hole as far as rationalizations for how things are laid out in my weird layouts (some of them possibly misguided), and unless you've been staring at the map for tens of hours+ looking at army pathing, etc. then those things may not be obvious. I'm sure it's much the same for other people's maps too. For a lot of my maps the design philosophy is very Brood War, i.e. you have lots of things that are imbalanced in a vacuum but when put together they are hopefully OK. So if you initially only see one of those things then it may scream "imba". Or maybe I'm just pretentious, ha | ||
| ||
