Just a thought on conventions: you might like to color canyons differently depending on whether you can or can't blink across them (possibly striped to indicate the blink direction, and similarly use different icons for rock-blocked ramps depending on whether there is a place to stand a unit on the ramp without destroying the rocks, and when you make very small platforms or chokes, to indicate their sizes with different icons, indicating what will fit on top of them or block them off.

CagedMind

United States506 Posts

April 21 2010 21:35 GMT

#62

I think I like fabiano changes a lot. tdelamay lol you don't have to make a layout look pretty. Coloring you did for top one actually made it harder to look at.

Tdelamay

Canada548 Posts

April 21 2010 21:41 GMT

#63

On April 22 2010 06:35 CagedMind wrote:
I think I like fabiano changes a lot. tdelamay lol you don't have to make a layout look pretty. Coloring you did for top one actually made it harder to look at.

Yeah, I won't use brushes with blurry edges the next time *sad face*
I like the OP's map. They are easy on the eye.

On the first map though, why is there a destructable rock on that cliff seperating the two expos? It's the sort of rock that helps the attacker more than the defender.

BasedSwag

Algeria418 Posts

April 21 2010 21:42 GMT

#64

If you don't have beta do you mind if other people attempt to create the map once the editor is released? I want to learn how to use the editor/scripting ASAP but I don't currently have any map ideas of my own.

imperator-xy

Germany1377 Posts

April 21 2010 21:43 GMT

#65

the updated one is looking really good, i just have 1 suggestion

On April 22 2010 06:25 smore wrote:
i would like to see the destructible rocks in the back of the bases moved to ramp that leads to the center area of the map.

with the destructible rocks where they are now it seems like that one natural is very open to harassment with siege or even upgraded colossus i guess

[wh]_ForAlways

United States235 Posts

April 21 2010 21:43 GMT

#66

My only real complaint is the rush distance from nat to nat seems absurdly short.

nixi

Sweden39 Posts

April 21 2010 22:47 GMT

#67

On April 22 2010 06:42 Chrustler wrote:
If you don't have beta do you mind if other people attempt to create the map once the editor is released? I want to learn how to use the editor/scripting ASAP but I don't currently have any map ideas of my own.

Hehe thanks but I do have beta and intend to make it myself

On April 22 2010 06:43 [wh]_ForAlways wrote:
My only real complaint is the rush distance from nat to nat seems absurdly short.

You are absolutely right about this. I'll make sure the distance is longer in the next version. I'm thinking slightly longer than on desert oasis.

About the other remarks I've received: Some improvements has been done!

I moved the rock to the ramp as suggested. However, reapers and colos can still reach the expansion but they'll have to go a bit further around. Also I added some vision blockers there so melee units stand a chance in defending those places.

The watchtowers were slightly moved and I added a circle to show their range. As you can see, stalkers can blink up that natural cliff if a xel'naga tower is taken.

I'm thinking about naming the map "Reaper Valley"

[image loading]

LaughingTulkas

United States1107 Posts

April 21 2010 23:11 GMT

#68

Just wanted to say I think it's really interesting that you put the vision blockers on the edges of cliffs like that. I don't think any other map does that and I'm intrigued by how that could affect things. If it works the way I think it might, it would essentially make that cliff "not cliffable" until you have something that provides vision down. It's like a 2 way vision blocker, units can't see up or down. Of course, units might be able to stand "in" it and therefore see down, which might not be what you're looking for.

zerglingsfolife

United States1694 Posts

April 21 2010 23:15 GMT

#69

Chills rule of map analysis. Every map looks Terran favored because you can tank everywhere.

I like the work you put into it. It looks interesting, can't wait for these new maps!

Katkishka

United States657 Posts

April 21 2010 23:17 GMT

#70

looks like it'd turn into a huge cheesefest imo
but I do like the layout aside from the cliffs in the back of the main
and it does seem really terran-favoured too..

sur_reaL

Canada278 Posts

April 21 2010 23:17 GMT

#71

On April 22 2010 08:15 zerglingsfolife wrote:
Chills rule of map analysis. Every map looks Terran favored because you can tank everywhere.

I like the work you put into it. It looks interesting, can't wait for these new maps!

Island maps... WEEEEEE!!!!!

Rising_Phoenix

United States370 Posts

April 21 2010 23:19 GMT

#72

I like it, but I feel like the TWO naturals is a bit much. Maybe put the back expansion behind destructible rocks? It just feels a little zerg favored since they can just mass workers and get a huge econ advantage and steamroll quickly.

The expansions by the watch towers are too exposed in my opinion. Either give them protection using cliffs or site blockers.

This is just my two cents. I really like what your doing and am excited to see decent ladder maps!

As a war3 player I can tell you stale map pools suck.

Fortress

Sweden96 Posts

April 21 2010 23:23 GMT

#73

Well the latest version looks pretty good, although I have one concern. The expansions at the watch towers seem ridiculously open. By the looks of it, they seem far harder to defend than the high yields, even though the high yields have 2 entry ways.

Perhaps a switch of these would be preferable? I'd reckon a rule-of-thumb would be to always have the hardest defendable expansion be a high yield one, because anything else wouldn't make much sense really.

Solaris.playgu

Sweden480 Posts

April 21 2010 23:24 GMT

#74

I think the design just gets better and better. My thoughts on this latest one:

I can't see any reason for the vision blockers behind the closed off natural, to me it seems extremely easy to defend anyways. Such an easily defended expansion needs to have some sort of drawback.

Also, I cannot see any reason for the rocks blocking the cliffs between the nats. Honestly, they'll make reaper harass extremely potent and fully prevent fast expanding, since they would be impossible to catch.

If you'd allow me I would love to participate in trying out this map (even though I'm not very good lol).
Feel free to add me, have the same name.identifier ingame as I do here =)

Jyvblamo

Canada13788 Posts

April 21 2010 23:24 GMT

#75

On April 22 2010 06:43 [wh]_ForAlways wrote:
My only real complaint is the rush distance from nat to nat seems absurdly short.

Not any shorter than Steppes and 3v6, 9v12 positions on Metal/LT.

RogerChillingworth

Chad3074 Posts

April 22 2010 00:47 GMT

#76

I really love this design. It makes two central arenas unique to the current maps. I have a slight issue with the high ground behind the mains. It seems too abusable. The natural high high grounds seem O.K. Adds some tension to expanding.

Overall, thumbs up. Keep up the good work! Keep being creative.

Hammy

France828 Posts

April 22 2010 01:03 GMT

#77

Starting to look better and better. I think it still needs wider areas though, and perhaps more strategically placement LoS blockers in the center.

Also, the yellow shouldn't be in the corner imo. They should be next to the Xel'Naga and placed slightly differently (facing the center perhaps?).

Another alternative is to keep it there but put the rocks #3 on the yellow base CC spot, instead of on the ramp. Two ramps leading to a yellow is a good thing.

Toran7

United States160 Posts

April 22 2010 01:03 GMT

#78

What's the size of the map? If it's as big as steps of war it's very unfair towards Zerg, but what if it's huge?

Clearout

Norway1060 Posts

April 22 2010 01:05 GMT

#79

So basically you have 2 routes into your main? Proxy rush inc. Just sayin