TLMC9 Feedback Thread - Page 5

Uvantak

Uruguay1381 Posts

October 14 2017 03:34 GMT

#81

On September 22 2017 21:19 Samro225am wrote:
i'd love to have some feedback, too. Specifically third base, gold base, spacing (openness, chokes, distances) and expansion layout. + Show Spoiler [Verdure Island] +

Verdure imo is a very, very solid map, the layout is cool enough, the spacing between bases is also good, but even when things like the bridges are interesting and all it still failed to catch enough attention vs the competition, remember that the standard category is basically the most competitive of them all.

Here's some of the changes I have in mind.

[image loading]

Many of the changes are focused on slightly increasing openess, and small quality of life changes like the overlord spotting highground, adding the small bridge at the middle in order to avoid a straight line attack path and accent even more the bridges that are already set up, reduce the lenght of some of the bridges to have more space for armies moving around, and have more space in case you want to create changes here and there.

Hopefully the feedback better show you some of the issues that left the map out.

Uvantak

Uruguay1381 Posts

October 16 2017 23:01 GMT

#82

On September 23 2017 06:59 SidianTheBard wrote:
Already heard feedback on Blackwood Timbers & 2Fort via Discord but since Fatam raged at me...

Habitation Station 2:
https://i.imgur.com/Sye765b.jpg

Tried to bring out different features with the return of the gold base, all the little ramps toward the middle, the potential forward 3rd base for aggressive. Figure maybe it was just too "normal"? I dunno. Thanks!

Ok, hopefully this comes out alright

Habitation Station 2 had couple issues, but most of them sprout from the changes you made to the center of the map inverting the position where there used to be choke points and where there used to be wide ramps:

More specifically I'm talking about these choke points:

+ Show Spoiler [chokepoints leading from the central h…] +

These changes, even when they generate issues which where correctly addressed like the increased danger of things like armies camping in the highground with siege units (read correctly moved the highgrounds away from the third because of siegetank range):

+ Show Spoiler [siege tank range on HS 2.0] +

Overlay of Siege Tank range

[image loading]

Because the highgrounds were pushed back a bit, they correctly leave enough breathing room for the defender to maneuver

At the same time, that extra needed openness, leads to issues with the third bases being probably too exposed when accouting, for the missing chokes which were present on the version 1.0 of the map:

+ Show Spoiler +

Specifically, that key choke near the natural ramp is the one which helped slow down armies from being able to fully envelop the defender's army at the base of the Natural ramp.

Habitation Station 1.0 ---- ---- Habitation Station 2.0

The increase in openness above from 1.0 to 2.0 is very clear on the map analyzer.

+ Show Spoiler [Non-Gif links] +

The main issue here, is that said chokepoint helped a fair amount, on allowing the rather exposed Third base set up on Habitation Station to work, because it helped reduce the flow of the attacker's army, and acted as a small buffer.

Now unlike many of the other maps that I have reviewed on this thread, this map accounted very well for the "Siege Tank Menace", by moving the central highgrounds a bit back, but on doing so, and by removing the chokepoint near the natural ramps, it helped weaken its own Third base set up.

The trick here, is that, if the Shield Batteries that are being tested atm end up working, and allowing Toss players to take more exposed Third bases, then that would indeed mean that this map as it stands might very well work in that scenario, the kicker tho, is that the Shield Batteries atm are not on the main game, and as such, it got dropped off the "Standard Category race".

Now that out of the way, here's a more personal mapmaking angle to other things which I consider issues with the way the choke points were inverted, and it is the creation of a central plateau which is not particularly easy to for both players access to, specially when the armies are roaming around the map on the Early Lategame or Late Midgame. Meaning, I see this plateau as an area where a single player will want to be around most often than not, instead of having the two players interact.

Classic colored map:

By the coloring you can kinda tell what I mean, I consider the center of the map might be too "detached", choke points were highlighted to better show the idea.

And here is how it looks with the attack paths are shown.

Size of arrows, represent difficulty traversing terrain, the bigger the arrow, the easier big armies can travel.

Both maps clearly have the preference for the "top" attack path (bottom on 2.0), which is the mark of Habitation Station, yet, Habitation Station 2.0 also has this almost pendulum like attack path on the middle/central plateau, because on 2.0 it is easier to attack the "enemy" side of the plateau once you "climbed" onto it, than it is to actually "get" your army on top of the plateau because the chokepoints prevent easy access to it when going "up".

So because of those difficulties, at the end, on my mind you kind of end up with something like this:

Where the central plateaus can become kind of like a pendulum. Swaying depending on who's on top of the plateau, and whoever is, because of the inherent difficulty of actually getting there can also keep the other player down, because he has the highground advantage.

Most maps which have mirroed symmetry can become like this, in the close past we have played on Gettysburg which had this kind of feature, yet there the Third base wasnt as exposed as here, nor was it on the same scale, it was for the most part limited to the North of the map, not quite the entirety of the center, and it had the large ramps which made easier to attack up.

All of this leads to a final point, how easy to defend the "bottom" bases truly are, and at least to me, the answer is "not very" defensible.

So, yeah, there also is the entire thing with the 3 gases on the Golds, and Pros were kind of interested on it, I personally, can't really talk about that kind of specific balance, I mean, I could, but I dont feel personally that I know enough of current and possibly future metagame and balance development to for sure say if those Golds will for certain be "broken" or no, tho, I would seriously advice for caution and at least remove 1 of the gases, they are cute as they are a good bonus lategame, but because of the gold minerals, the entire base also gives a considerable boost to any player's economy at any point in the game, so yeah, tricky.

Almost forgot, bigger main base is kind of neat! And you might want to do what Meavis does when he does the square cliffing, to avoid SCV's getting stuck, just a quality of life kind of thing.

Uvantak

Uruguay1381 Posts

October 20 2017 22:55 GMT

#83

On September 27 2017 03:00 Crozo64 wrote:
Want some feedback too : Wuru ice

+ Show Spoiler +

You didnt ask for specifics, so I'll just give a general outline.

Map overall is "fine", the core layout is a pretty solid standard map, the spacing between the nat and all the alternative thirds is overall good tho it touches a bit too much on the too close side of things, but that's a detail, the nat choke is also good + Show Spoiler +

.

The space behind the Nat mineral line is also decent, not too big, enough for ovies and the harassing liberator.

Issues on the map are rather limited, and those are the (Avex style!) bases basically overlapping at the 12 and 6, the double ramps at the third, poor cliffing and use of space and aesthetics with cliffs, general lack of clarity on the ground texturing, bad usage of mineral lines.

Tho beyond those issues, the core idea of standard maps such as this one, isnt too shabby, a bit dull in the center, but solid enough with the highgrounds and the Xel'naga Towers.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

October 23 2017 07:21 GMT

#84

On October 14 2017 12:34 Uvantak wrote:

Show nested quote +

Thank you for taking the time to discuss the map. Amongst other changes I might reconsider how the centre works. The changes won't make it the most exciting conceptual map,but hopefully very, very solid and a bit more interesting than before.

On October 14 2017 12:34 Uvantak wrote:
Here's some of the changes I have in mind.

+ Show Spoiler +

The ideas offered are small adaptations that should be easy enough to make and should be quite effective.

The only thing I am not so sure about is the main ramp change due to distance to the third. Probably I can come up with a bigger overall change in the starting quarter of the map that helps me increase main space, but also have a better ramp setup there and create more space for the cliff-hugging low ground base.

About the changes in the map's centre I am also not 100% sure, since the tight corridor will still not be an open area. Mainly i am unhappy about that area's integration to the gold on the one side and the common base on the other.

hence I consider to increase map width slightly to have some more space for that. In this process I will consider to change how the map splits. Right now there is a diagonal split that creates two parallel low ground buffer zones that are a bit tricky to navigate. If I manage to change the central bridge's/choke's orientation (90°). What I mean by this is that the forward ramp from the gold plateau will no longer move down into a tight lateral transfer zone, but down into a more basin shaped area that has a higher connectivity to the opponents bases (the vertical highroad ledge along the map's borders lefthand right. In my imagination at least this will also create better flow and integration overall without making it too anti-macro.

your mock-up with the three bridges is somewhat close to what the setup was before, btw. yet it will make the lateral zones between bridges and bases even a stronger aspect of the map and i think this would be problematic.

Here are two sketches about the probably somewhat problematic lateral transfer zones and an illustration about the basin-idea with the new central bridge idea for more openness and a more vertical split.

Thoughts?

[image loading]

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 All

Please or register to reply.

TLMC9 Feedback Thread - Page 5

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming