| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
Neo Steppes of War v3: ![[image loading]](http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7339/neosteppesofwarv3.jpg) Neo Steppes of War v2: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/1191/neosteppesofwarv2.jpg) Neo Steppes of War v1: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8013/neosteppesofwar.jpg) The nat and 3rd have switched places in order to create a longer path between mains. I have also increased the size of the middle lane added two additional side lanes which players can use to flank or counter-attack. Let me know what you think  Update for v2: New natural expo design & modified middle. | ||
|
AssuredVacancy
United States1167 Posts
| ||
|
drag_
England425 Posts
| ||
|
HCastorp
United States388 Posts
| ||
|
Endorsed
Netherlands1221 Posts
| ||
|
Ryps
Romania2740 Posts
On June 09 2010 03:02 Endorsed wrote: Maybe to make mech less imba on this map. What about having no High Ground in the bases? High ground isnt an advantage.. this aint SC:BW with a miss rating. | ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
FortuneSyn
1826 Posts
| ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
| ||
|
fantomex
United States313 Posts
| ||
|
Skaff
United States240 Posts
On June 09 2010 03:04 PaD wrote: High ground isnt an advantage.. this aint SC:BW with a miss rating. Correction, it's not as much of an advantage like it was in BW. The loss of sight counts for a small amount at least! | ||
|
rockon1215
United States612 Posts
Pretty though | ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
looks like the real thing but it's completely different and no balance consideration is taken. Interesting idea, i guess alot of biggamehunters' fans will play it, but without some improvements it will not be a good competitive map | ||
|
red.venom
United States4651 Posts
On June 09 2010 05:35 rockon1215 wrote: shortening the rush distance kinds ruins what made steppes of war, steppes of war, Pretty though Really? Cuz i feel like the rush distance from nat to nat will always be short and Steppes could benefit from being longer vertically. I don't see how mech would be any better on this map compared to how it already is on steppes. Simple change but I think its cool | ||
|
Slunk
Germany768 Posts
I actually really like this map. The longer distance and the base layout reminds me a little of HeartBreakRidge that is my absolutely all time favourite BW map. To be honest, this version of SoW makes it even harder for mech to hold in the earlier stages due to the fact that you have two entrances to cover when you take your natural. On the other hand, as a protoss player you can no longer FFE versus zerg, that really would cut into my PvZ, so maybe you should consider some rocks on either one of those ramps. In general I think your version is pretty good, but I also have the opinion that SoW is one of the maps (along with LT and BS) in the mappack that needed the overhaul the least. So, the next time you should maybe try to improve Maps like Kulas or Incineration Zone. | ||
|
Anon06
United States203 Posts
| ||
|
Ovi
164 Posts
| ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
The reason mech was preferred by Terran players is because SoW didn't offer many flanking opportunities. Also, the distance between nat and the middle was extremely small, so you could push out and immediately threaten the opponent's nat. I believe that this version allows players to set up some good flanks and possibly counter a fortified position by using the side paths. As for a Terran easily getting and defending 3 bases, the ramp leading from the 3rd to the middle is much wider than the original ramp (from nat to middle). Also, the distance from this ramp to the nat ramp leading towards the gold expo has been doubled. This was done so that the attacker can catch the opponent out of position, which was nearly impossible to do before. A defender running from nat to 3rd in the original version was much easier compared to this. The gold expansions are much harder to defend simply because they're in a much wider area compared to the original version of SoW. I plan on modifying other maps as well. At the moment I will just work on one map at a time. Next project will be Incineration Zone, as that map was pure crap for Zergs | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
Slunk suggested rocks on one of the ramps, but I don't think that would cut it. Maybe if you shrunk the natural a bit by getting rid of all that space above the geyser on the left and below the geyser on the right, and made it impossible for stuff to get into the main by going behind the mineral line... | ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
On June 09 2010 08:13 Kyadytim wrote: I kind of like it, except that you totally killed Protoss 10 gate openings against Zerg on this map, what with the giant, wide open natural with 2 entrances. Slunk suggested rocks on one of the ramps, but I don't think that would cut it. Maybe if you shrunk the natural a bit by getting rid of all that space above the geyser on the left and below the geyser on the right, and made it impossible for stuff to get into the main by going behind the mineral line... Yeah I realize this is a problem so the nat will be redesigned to allow Protoss to FE against Zerg. I am also thinking about placing some water in the middle to give some cover against a 360 degree flank. | ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
Interesting. I feel however that the natural is sooooo open and everything screams reaper fuck me. Exactly my thought. | ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1193/newnat.jpg) Possible Protoss FE against Zerg: ![[image loading]](http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9927/protossfe.jpg) Any comments or suggestions are welcome | ||
|
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
On June 09 2010 05:28 Skaff wrote: Correction, it's not as much of an advantage like it was in BW. The loss of sight counts for a small amount at least! Also it's hard for melee units to hit stuff up on a cliff ;p | ||
|
VelRa_G
Canada304 Posts
An offhand suggestion: + Show Spoiler + Remove the ramp from 3 and 9 naturals to inside 2 and 7. Make 2 and 7 high yield and current high yield regular. | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
| ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
And if it were up to me, i'd "stretch" the entire map [in the middle] a bit to create a bit more breathing room as i feel steppes of war is too small in general. | ||
|
BigDatez
Canada434 Posts
| ||
|
Maelkyral
United States22 Posts
| ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
On June 09 2010 11:06 Maelkyral wrote: I don't really understand how your new natural design permits protoss FE. In the screenshot given, the Zerg can easily harass the mineral line with lings by entering from the south ramp. There's also no choke in this situation for the protoss to defend, making it much harder to stop a roach push. The roaches might even be able to assault the Nexus while being out of cannon range in the setup you have shown. Think of it as a Metalopolis FE. Zerg can harass the mineral line as well, but that doesn't mean FE is impossible. And if someone tries to roach rush, you should have enough time to prepare your defense. As for the building placement, I'm not suggesting every Protoss should FE like this. It is just an example to show that FE can be done, the players can decide where to place Gateways/Forge/Cannons as they like. | ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
| ||
|
Andtwo
United States126 Posts
| ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
On June 10 2010 00:19 Andtwo wrote: Can tanks hit 3rd from the gold (especially the vespene)? Regardless, as a zerg player I really like it and I'd undownvote it if this was the steppes version on ladder instead of the current. I recently looked into this and found that some spots can be hit by siege tanks. I am currently working on a version that will fix this | ||
|
Plethora
United States206 Posts
On June 09 2010 10:24 VelRa_G wrote: An offhand suggestion: + Show Spoiler + Remove the ramp from 3 and 9 naturals to inside 2 and 7. Make 2 and 7 high yield and current high yield regular. I was going to suggest the same thing and then I read it. Remove the ramp from nat to current "3rd", then swap the gold and regular minerals. It gives players the option of going ground and shooting for an eventual 4-bases, or incorporating air and aiming to take the gold just outside their main (but with a crazy long walk distance to defend it). EDIT: Suggestion 2: It might be interesting to reposition the watchtowers to the narrow little alleyways under the natural expos (between the two ramps). I'm not sure how it would play out but it would give you the opportunity to get a good look at your opponents defenses if you snuck a unit in there, and as the defender it would punish you for not "guarding" your own watchtower, so to speak. It's at least a different way to use the watchtowers than we have seen thus far. | ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
| ||
|
Lemorex
United States5 Posts
As a protoss, I have to say that having a ledge like that right in front of your starting base seems like its just asking to have tanks lined up underneath, its a very good position for mech play while not helping colossi because of the long distance from the ledge to the actual base. On the plus side, I like the more open middle and feel like that is a great addition that will open up play a little bit; as a protoss I always just ffed the ramp from the natural and it was pretty easy to split zerg armies, i think this new design should fix that some. Finally, I'm not sure if this is a bad thing, but looking at the expos it seems like on two to three bases your main would be extremely vulnerable to a drop since there seems to be a long walking distance from the third expo(the one directly below the starting base) and your starting base. Overall though I like it and hope my criticism is helpful. | ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
As for the watchtowers, I don't want to put them in areas that will reveal key parts of the map. Your suggestion sounds interesting though and I will definitely look into it. On June 10 2010 02:45 QueueQueue wrote: Would be some interesting macro games. I think this map layout kind of takes away from dynamic play a bit. Compared to the original map, do you think it's less dynamic? For me, SoW seemed like a really boring map to play. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
you bastard stealing my initial idea so now im fiddling with incineration zone instead  | ||
|
Ovi
164 Posts
I dont think he should block off one of the entrances to the natural. If he removed the one to the third that would suck for taking a quick and easily defendeble third, and if he removed the other one that would mean getting 1 extra free expo while taking the third first which would pretty much turn the map into a 3 base turtlefest in some matchups. | ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
The third (natural on your version) being easily defendable is a great feature, and would work well on the concept of the original map. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
Not to say this map doesn't seem much more balanced than the original in the current form. I just loved massive flanks in the middle of steppes if you don't die to fast rushes or tank pushes. | ||
|
maragin
United States59 Posts
3 ideas: 1) Widen the choke from the natural to the main, making it a little easier to scout/harass. 2) Destructable rocks from the main to the 2nd natural. 3) I was looking at the "bridge to nowhere" on the top main, and thought it would be sweet if that bridge extended out to the back of the gold expo with destructable rocks on the gold side. Oh! Dynamic maps... is this possible? Can the bridge & rocks "materialize" at an arbitrary time ...10:00-15 min in game time? (Visions of the bridge flying together like a watchtower with Zel'Naga magic) Something like that would add a new twist to typical maps. Anyways, cool map redesign. | ||
|
VelRa_G
Canada304 Posts
| ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
| ||
|
Plethora
United States206 Posts
On June 10 2010 13:11 keV. wrote: Seems to me that you still have the same problem of 3 bases being far too easy to defend... Much like the original Why is having 3 easily defendable bases inherently bad? I've never played on that sort of map in SC2 (neither has anyone posting here really) and one can only theorycraft so much. I know SC1 has a laundry list of maps with 3 easily defendable bases, and by and large they are not any more imba than any other maps. | ||
|
yarkO
Canada810 Posts
| ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
There are still a lot of positional imbalances that need to be fixed. The original map wasn't perfectly symmetrical so I will have to modify some other things as well. | ||
|
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
LAN Event
Lambo vs Harstem
FuturE vs Maplez
Scarlett vs FoxeR
Gerald vs Mixu
Zoun vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
ByuN vs TBD
TriGGeR vs TBD
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
dxtr13 vs OldBoy
Napoleon vs Doodle
LAN Event
BSL 21
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs Sterling
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
IPSL
JDConan vs WIZARD
WolFix vs Cross
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
