|
|
|
I usually dislike maps with 4 spawns, but after playing a few games on this map I like it. I also think the base layout (talking about the first 3 bases) is nice.
|
ugh
two entrances into main, no rocks either :/
edit:
nvm you used the small 4x4 ones.
not sure if im a fan either way
|
On July 20 2017 13:06 Avexyli wrote:
ugh
two entrances into main, no rocks either :/
edit:
nvm you used the small 4x4 ones.
not sure if im a fan either way
Not a fan either especially with where they are placed--attacking units can threaten the natural and run into the main (or vice versa) faster than the defender can get there. I think the map is too choked up overall to allow for the movement of late game armies too.
|
Now, this is definitely cool!
|
On July 20 2017 13:26 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 13:06 Avexyli wrote:
ugh
two entrances into main, no rocks either :/
edit:
nvm you used the small 4x4 ones.
not sure if im a fan either way Not a fan either especially with where they are placed--attacking units can threaten the natural and run into the main (or vice versa) faster than the defender can get there. I think the map is too choked up overall to allow for the movement of late game armies too.
agreed, this is the classic blistering sands backdoor problem. imo just remove the backdoor entrance, then maybe move the resources away from the cliff edge to reduce vulnerability.
speaking of super old wol maps, this kinda reminds me of delta quadrant.
|
got a slight feeling mirror symmetry works better over rota symmetry here
|
On July 20 2017 13:06 Avexyli wrote:
ugh
two entrances into main, no rocks either :/
edit:
nvm you used the small 4x4 ones.
not sure if im a fan either way
It is very easy to see if the rocks are being broken down by enemy units and after you take them down yourself you can defend both ramps by putting your army between the two ramps.
|
Usually the least thing I would add to a map are backdoors. But in this specific case I thought it will be more an advantage than usually a disadvantage. The army always has to pass infront of the mainramp to get to the rocks, where than the enemy forces are cornered on a low ground. And on the other hand gives players a close third base when the rocks are broken down.
|
the maps loses nothing from being reflectional rather than rotation geometry. also it is a super quick fix given how the map is constructed. the rotational geometry creates so many issues that are not easy to deal with namely the distance to third as well as drops (both in close spawns) and this was already discussed several years ago. if one does a rotational map one has to at least pay more attention to the setup of the bases.
|
On July 20 2017 23:28 Samro225am wrote:
the maps loses nothing from being reflectional rather than rotation geometry. also it is a super quick fix given how the map is constructed. the rotational geometry creates so many issues that are not easy to deal with namely the distance to third as well as drops (both in close spawns) and this was already discussed several years ago. if one does a rotational map one has to at least pay more attention to the setup of the bases.
Thx for your general advices/opinion in creating a 4 player map. But you are also welcome to give specific feedback on this map.
|
On July 21 2017 05:36 IIEclipseII wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 23:28 Samro225am wrote:
the maps loses nothing from being reflectional rather than rotation geometry. also it is a super quick fix given how the map is constructed. the rotational geometry creates so many issues that are not easy to deal with namely the distance to third as well as drops (both in close spawns) and this was already discussed several years ago. if one does a rotational map one has to at least pay more attention to the setup of the bases. Thx for your general advices/opinion in creating a 4 player map. But you are also welcome to give specific feedback on this map.
most obvious problem is: distance cw third to natural base < distance ccw third to main base (CC-CC as well as choke-CC); hence any matchup and spawn setup that makes you choose the cw third will favor you against your opponent.
the other issue – which is also addressed in the general analysis of 4base-rotational-maps – is the orientation of the natural's mineral line that is pretty easy to attack by air.
in my opinion even a map conceptualized as a rush map should allow players to potentially grab three bases no matter if in a favorable close spawn spot or not.
hence what i suggest is that you use space more efficiently (empty corners, really?) and think about two natural bases each with there own (blocked) entrances and make the base axial symmetry. In doing so a strong push can go through, but you could also be effective when aiming at a longer game.
i think the semi-island-golds could be slightly favorable for terran. i would like to see the setup of rocks and the destructible-tower to be switched around. together with blocked nat-ramps the paths would be a bit longer and more interesting to run through with the up and down and also the golds could not be made into blocked semi-islands, but there would always remain a single-ramp openness.
|
Update :
Main changes:
- Moved Upper Third closer to Mainbase
- Wided up the chokes around the Third and Gold bases. Also wided up the middle and big ramp leading to the middle to allow late game army movement.
- placed a Watch Tower in the middle
- Removed all Rocks around the Third and Gold bases and replaced them by Destructible Rock Towers/Cooling Towers. All Rock/Cooling Towers collapse togheter when a single Rock or Cooling Tower of its group gets triggered. (watch Video)
- changed the alignment of the Natural and Mainbase so the mineral lines are not so exposed anymore.
|
On July 20 2017 16:13 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 13:26 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On July 20 2017 13:06 Avexyli wrote:
ugh
two entrances into main, no rocks either :/
edit:
nvm you used the small 4x4 ones.
not sure if im a fan either way Not a fan either especially with where they are placed--attacking units can threaten the natural and run into the main (or vice versa) faster than the defender can get there. I think the map is too choked up overall to allow for the movement of late game armies too. agreed, this is the classic blistering sands backdoor problem. imo just remove the backdoor entrance, then maybe move the resources away from the cliff edge to reduce vulnerability. speaking of super old wol maps, this kinda reminds me of delta quadrant.
Blistering Sands problem unless you're Terran, in which case you can just siege up on the high ground and cover everything. Same thing with the excessive destructible rocks and overall space on the map, which makes it really good to siege push. Makes me think the author is a Terran player tbh; big oversights in racial balance.
Definitely think the map concept is salvageable, though. Just needs a bit of terrain adjustment.
|
1. Those backdoors are not big of a deal, you probably would agree if you have playtested the map. What I guess you didn't.
2. Siege tanks have no range on the expansions when the rocks are collapsed
3. The map concept is very innovative and I'm sure there was nothing comparable before, so without actually playtesting it on every skill Level (what I did) its hard to actually have a solid opinion. So I have to be very careful about simple comments with poorly backed up claims
4. Last time I asked Beastyqt about his opinion on another map only from the images , he said he wouldn't give me an opinion becouse he first has to play it.
But I'm happy about every feedback. I will still give this concept a chance and submit it like it is.
|
Why do you keep on dogmatically asserting that the backdoor isn't a problem? What makes this map different from the countless others where backdoors caused problems?
Because if I have to choose between your unqualified claim that your map is truly unique and unprecedented and has solved a problem that no other map was able to, and the possibility that this map is just as flawed as all the others that came before it, Occam has an easy decision.
|
So these are all the points why I believe this will work. Also in all of the test games I did, the backdoors were never a problem. Just to give some confidents in my arguments:
1. MrTea is one of many people with who I playtested this map. he is Masters 2-1 Zerg, and he already replied to this:
On July 20 2017 22:09 mrteaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 13:06 Avexyli wrote:
ugh
two entrances into main, no rocks either :/
edit:
nvm you used the small 4x4 ones.
not sure if im a fan either way It is very easy to see if the rocks are being broken down by enemy units and after you take them down yourself you can defend both ramps by putting your army between the two ramps.
2. So most likely the rocks will be abused during the early game. As soon as the game hits the 5:00 minute mark the backdoor function becomes irrelevant, as the Backdoor just becomes a normal Natural Ramp with an already 1500hp and 3 armor structure walled off . So only until this point the backdoors act like an actual backdoor. The rocks are just replacing a usual wall off in the early game, with 1500HP and 3 armor. A Pylon or Supply Depot has 200/200 0/400 Shields/HP and 1 armor. Additionally players will very likely start to build a second wall behind the rocks while the game progresses.
3.On other maps like Blistering Sands or Central Protocol the Backdoor is at a less protectable position, also where less unit movement happens. They were actual "Back"-doors.
4. The position of the backdoor is behind the main entrance ramp, units that are inside the mainbase or just outside of the mainbase can easily intercept forces that are trying to breach in with the enemy forces beeing on a lowground which is a tactical disadvantage.
|
Defending from outside your bases is tricky as it means that if you are surprised and forced to retreat the opponent can run into the other base. Also if you have replays of your testing you should post them. Like that you'll get more informed feedback.
|
it's a bit late today, but I will try to get some fresh highlevel replays tomorrow.
|
On August 22 2017 06:15 IIEclipseII wrote:
1. Those backdoors are not big of a deal, you probably would agree if you have playtested the map. What I guess you didn't.
2. Siege tanks have no range on the expansions when the rocks are collapsed
3. The map concept is very innovative and I'm sure there was nothing comparable before, so without actually playtesting it on every skill Level (what I did) its hard to actually have a solid opinion. So I have to be very careful about simple comments with poorly backed up claims
4. Last time I asked Beastyqt about his opinion on another map only from the images , he said he wouldn't give me an opinion becouse he first has to play it.
But I'm happy about every feedback. I will still give this concept a chance and submit it like it is.
When dismissing feedback based on ranking, do keep in mind that some of us also have or had Masters experience.
Basic positional concepts don't change very much. My main concern when looking at the map is focused on dealing with 1 or 2 base all-ins (like a siege push) as a Protoss or Zerg. Like I mentioned, Terrans like myself should be fine holding an early timing. Getting into each point:
On August 22 2017 06:15 IIEclipseII wrote:
1. Those backdoors are not big of a deal, you probably would agree if you have playtested the map. What I guess you didn't.
They're not an issue if you can secure the low ground in front (e.g. be on 3 bases or have a big enough army that can confidently sit out there). That's a pretty important distinction from simply being "not a big deal". To also quote MrTea:
On July 20 2017 22:09 mrteaSC wrote:
It is very easy to see if the rocks are being broken down by enemy units and after you take them down yourself you can defend both ramps by putting your army between the two ramps.
You can take that quote and assume "oh it's not a problem then", but it'd be rather short-sighted. What you should be asking yourself is this: should a defending Z/P player lose on this map if they ever lose control of the low-ground outside of their ramps?
If the answer to that question is "yes", that's fine, but do understand that makes this a Terran-favoured map if Terran players are able to exploit that (which they should be able to, given other key terrain design choices on the map).
On August 22 2017 06:15 IIEclipseII wrote:
2. Siege tanks have no range on the expansions when the rocks are collapsed
Two things being missed with this one:
1. The collapsible rocks actually make a Terran siege push stronger by reducing the number of flanks/surface area, which amplifies AoE strength.
2. In adjacent positions, a Terran siege push has access to the gold base to set up a high-ground positional advantage against the very same positional "solution" provided by MrTea.
On August 22 2017 06:15 IIEclipseII wrote:
3. The map concept is very innovative and I'm sure there was nothing comparable before, so without actually playtesting it on every skill Level (what I did) its hard to actually have a solid opinion. So I have to be very careful about simple comments with poorly backed up claims
There have been many comparable map designs that have also enabled exceedingly strong Terran siege pushes.  Delta Quadrant, for example, was notorious for it in adjacent positions (at least when Terrans weren't just massing bio off of 1 base -- the good old days), but your map gives even more power to the Terran through various means. DQ provided a very short rush distance, but the gold bases had a terrain level disadvantage and a reasonable distance for the defender to flank or counter-attack. Your map gives the gold base a terrain level advantage and the route through the middle of the map is much longer (on top of still having a terrain disadvantage).
It's fair to have healthy skepticism to critique, but be sure to test the validity of the claims (as ably as you can) instead of defensively ignoring them.
On August 22 2017 06:15 IIEclipseII wrote:
4. Last time I asked Beastyqt about his opinion on another map only from the images , he said he wouldn't give me an opinion becouse he first has to play it.
Beastyqt's comments on a different map have no relevance on this one. Some maps can be difficult to tell if there are balance issues, while some have pretty flagrant problems that can be seen just from an overview. It depends entirely on the map design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/bcc5/q5dlqr9s9jjjibjzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/19c4/7yc4b141u0i43b2zg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/4ac6/fz1yvfps9edgwrpzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/0efc/e0a3g7w5g94cadkzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/7971/0s251nldp2vcrhzzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/703b/ncjq79728u9jy3pzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e73a/ja9vxaxp9pv6jj6zg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/961c/avbxr4vm4wagp9azg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/34e0/2elb4j3644qulpwzg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/2822/28ihme7s9n1a0s8zg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/c1e0/ocfzd9nio4s647rzg.jpg)
