|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bpY9MBG.jpg)
FTM Harvesterby Fatam 150x140Published to All RegionsVersion 0.4![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mq8Lsf5.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/440KgiD.jpg) (old version) + Show Spoiler +(click all images for larger, better quality versions)Close-ups: + Show Spoiler +
Someone suggested I make a clantag for my maps so I can have the name I want even if it's taken by some random ancient map (which in this case it was), so I did it.
FTM maps: FTM for F--- The Meta, or F--- The Man, whichever you like  Both are appropriate for my maps and personality so there you go. Or you could imagine it's Flavor of the Month if you think my maps are bad 
So the map: which third do you take? 12m1g? 4m3g? Maybe spring for the gold? Or will you take the "in-natural" half-third for safety?
Wordiness / Explanation in spoilers.
+ Show Spoiler +I tried to make room for aggression or some light to moderate macro play. With this map concept your first instinct would just be to make it turtley so that every game people get to play with the new kinds of bases, but I think all maps should still allow for aggressive games as well.
Also, my hope is that with these thirds you're factoring in not only which resource setup you want, but combining that/weighing that against which third you think you can most easily defend, or even which third gives you a better pushing off point for an attack. Or what unit comp you want.
Combining all these questions rather than simply having identical locations which have different resources I think makes for some really interesting head-scratching, which is something we want as strategy gamers IMO.
Each third has a corresponding 4th with the same resource setup. Of course you may end up taking the bases in odd orders as well.
All feedback welcome, thanks for the help so far. It helped with making the new version.
|
Iraq16955 Posts
The layout's extremely cool. The alt-resources are reasonably cool. The two combined make PvZ unwinnable.
The multiple openings mean Protoss will have more difficulties than a normal map in taking a third, and meanwhile zerg can expand immediately to the 12m1g base and power out a massive army.
I think you should swap the 12m1g bases with the 4m3g base, since you can do less degenerate things early on with extra gas rather than extra minerals.
|
On February 15 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
The layout's extremely cool. The alt-resources are reasonably cool. The two combined make PvZ unwinnable.
The multiple openings mean Protoss will have more difficulties than a normal map in taking a third, and meanwhile zerg can expand immediately to the 12m1g base and power out a massive army.
I think you should swap the 12m1g bases with the 4m3g base, since you can do less degenerate things early on with extra gas rather than extra minerals.
I feel like you heavily underestimate ༼ つ ◕_◕༽つ THE POWER OF PROTOSS ༼ つ ◕_◕༽つ
|
thanks, i'm considering altering the nat so that you can wall just one location. and maybe remove 1-2 of the rocks so that pressure can be applied to that 12m1g base more easily
|
At first glance i like the way the map works. However 1 thing i wonder about is all that dead space around the map. I wonder what the map would look like if you kind of stretched the map from the top & the bottom, to therefore give more space in the middle of the map, what would it look like? Would that space allow for more bases there in the center, or some more interesting pathways? Just a thought i had while looking at it. But good map once again!
|
What stuck out to me the most when I first opened the thread was the aesthetic. The low/mid level contrast is really cool. After taking it in for a bit, I think mid/high could use some better differentiation. For example, this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/paJzksl.jpg)
Is not nearly as compelling as this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wEm6Aus.jpg)
I don't think it even needs to be as stark a contrast as what low/mid provides, but it does feel like there are two conflicting thematics on the map as-is: one feels like a forest during night, while the other feels like eye-candy alien terrain.
Both are perfectly acceptable in their own right, but there are a lot of earthy, forested maps, which is why I find the latter more compelling of a direction.
For gameplay, I've been out of StarCraft for too long to provide anything meaningful there. It does look like it'd be super fun to play on, though.
|
Do I detect a hint of my Shadow Wastes in here, Fatam? lmao
|
Thanks for the comments all
@ billy thanks. I usually have very little deadspace on my maps but this one does have a bit. However I don't think it's a giant amount.. probably comparable to the amount in the corners that, say, Ohana had. Definitely not as much as stuff like Akilon or some of the 3p maps have had.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SvHJMjg.jpg) (overhead view which shows exact bounds)
It's definitely an option to try and restructure the map to use all of the space. Since I only have tonight and maybe a little time tomorrow to work on it before I have to submit to TLMC that may not happen, but we'll see.
@ caustic nice of you to stop by, hope EA or whatever it is now is going well bro. I agree that the highground aesthetic isn't as interesting / doesn't grab you as much. I was thinking about doing some terran manmade as the highgrounds and maybe some other areas to make it look like a group had come in to mine the asteroid, but this is a really (really) last second map for TLMC so I was honestly rushing a bit to get the aesthetics done. Maybe if the map gets anywhere I can do a reskin of that part and really do the idea justice.
@ ero, i searched for shadow wastes on TL and didn't get a result, did it have a different name or was it posted on discord? I don't ever copy people's stuff and have always been huge on credit going where it's due (for whatever the situation is in life) but of course if I've seen the map posted somewhere before it's possible that I was subconsciously influenced by it. The name of the map does sound familiar.
|
0.4 version, original post fully updated
Thanks for the comments here and on discord, they helped me figure things out. I think the new version is a lot better and makes more sense.
Tons of changes but the natural is the biggest. Besides tucking it in, I put an "in-natural" half third, in case you are ever scared to take one of the further bases you can chicken out and take it. I think it compliments the rather far thirds pretty well. There's other reasons to take it too, such as zerg macro hatch or terran planetary. It can still be harassed a bit from outside the natural by siege units, though.
The gas third is pretty different now (a bit closer, among other things). Check that out.
Area around the XNT is different, with the rocks being removed from a couple ramps.
|
On February 16 2017 10:54 Fatam wrote:
@ caustic nice of you to stop by, hope EA or whatever it is now is going well bro. I agree that the highground aesthetic isn't as interesting / doesn't grab you as much. I was thinking about doing some terran manmade as the highgrounds and maybe some other areas to make it look like a group had come in to mine the asteroid, but this is a really (really) last second map for TLMC so I was honestly rushing a bit to get the aesthetics done. Maybe if the map gets anywhere I can do a reskin of that part and really do the idea justice.
Busy, but going really well. Thanks for the well wishes!
I'd recommend doing a second pass on the map regardless of TLMC, both for your own personal experience and to provide another level of polish to the map to help get it some attention down the road. A really good example of this practice is IeZaeL and his map Neo Emerald Plaza. Just peruse through that thread and see how the map has evolved over time.
|
Just a brainstorm.
I think the closest 3 geyser base should be a standard base, zerg can get the extra gas from the mini base already. I think zerg is really happy to take a "macro 4th" that can mine gas (its easier to defend than any 3rd or 4th).
The low ground bases are pretty bad, how about gold minerals 1 geyser instead? then remove the gold patches on the middle gold. That or make the middle gold more vulnerable. I know you put that doodad specifically to avoid it, but i think its better without it.
edit: oh wait, they are 12 minerals! didn't notice sorry.
How about 10? looks good enough, those bases are kinda safe man, too stronk.
|
Woah wait, hold the phone.
Are those 12 mineral bases? Jesus christ. I didn't even notice.
And a 3 gas base!
I don't even think zerg can utilize a 12 mineral base. We'd need like 4 macro hatches just for the larva.
|
stupid question im sure, but those mineral patches in the sky in the deadspace, are those real? Like can an overlord or viking fly into them & collect the minerals, like we would see in a campaign map? Or are they just decoration? If they are actual minerals i think thats pretty cool. Cant recall that ever being a feature in another map before.
|
Thanks for the feedback/comments. The mineral patches in the sky are just doodads/decoration. I actually had an idea for a map to have collectible resources like that during this TLMC, but it's something that would be very tricky to balance and time was so short. Expect to see it at some point (soon TM).
On February 21 2017 05:55 InfCereal wrote:
Woah wait, hold the phone.
Are those 12 mineral bases? Jesus christ. I didn't even notice.
And a 3 gas base!
I don't even think zerg can utilize a 12 mineral base. We'd need like 4 macro hatches just for the larva.
Yeah one of the ideas was that you might grab the 12 mineral base, then you have this little half base that's in your natural which is perfect for a macro hatch. Or a PF if you're terran for great defense and a little extra income. Or just in general if you don't feel safe taking a further base yet.
On February 21 2017 05:40 Superbanana wrote:
Just a brainstorm.
I think the closest 3 geyser base should be a standard base, zerg can get the extra gas from the mini base already. I think zerg is really happy to take a "macro 4th" that can mine gas (its easier to defend than any 3rd or 4th).
The low ground bases are pretty bad, how about gold minerals 1 geyser instead? then remove the gold patches on the middle gold. That or make the middle gold more vulnerable. I know you put that doodad specifically to avoid it, but i think its better without it.
edit: oh wait, they are 12 minerals! didn't notice sorry.
How about 10? looks good enough, those bases are kinda safe man, too stronk.
I definitely think you could play with some of the numbers. The initial thought was simply - give one third base option that is +50% minerals and -50% gas, another that is the opposite (-50% minerals and +50% gas) and another that is a gold base but a little riskier to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nLBOraS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KQKgmHT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4CV7ahF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PXbovww.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KdN9jI9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pdz9SDE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uuP0biA.jpg)
