|
On July 06 2010 21:23 Sethronu wrote:
It kinda looks like there are far too many chokes and narrow spaces in general. I'd get claustrophobia playing this map, especially if I were Zerg.
While it is chokey, the multiple ramps and paths make flanking look quite easy, and the expansion patterns zerg can use on this map are phenomenal.
Honestly this map just looks really balanced overall.
|
Any reason you have decided not to include watchtowers?
|
I really like the mineral only expos, but I think having 4 golds is a little much. The map is definitely creative and I like the style of it. Plus no watch towers is always a plus in my book lol.
|
I really think this map has good potential if you made the center minerals gold and made the gold expos regular. Thats too easy to hold 2 gold expos which seems over the top? I could be wrong because I havent played it but thats just what I think.
|
Awesome map!
On July 06 2010 21:09 Anon06 wrote:
its looks great but i think terran will abuse the close high-yields by lifting off at the start.
edit: got beat it to it.. but anyway destructible rocks solves that.
Aggre with you some destructible rocks should help out the balance some,might be a little to many chokes but real nice done! Keep making!
|
Wow, amazing feedback so far, thanks guys <3
On July 06 2010 20:00 majloon wrote:
Looks intresting, but isn't it quite easy to get both gold expansions at the same time?. Seems like when you have one defended the other one is too.
I'm glad you brough this up, great question. I'm foaming at the mouth for the game to be released so I can test this, because this is where the map is make-or-break. My theory is this, and please correct me if you think I'm bonkers:
Having two entrances to an expansion that is at the lowest ground, with very little area to build on, will play against the advantage of high-yield minerals.
On July 06 2010 20:41 intergalactic wrote:
I don't think that taking the two middle vertical expos is something anyone would ever do. They seem pretty much impossible to hold, so they are kinda pointless in my opinion.
Other than that, very nice looking map, and I approve of the "Gold Rush" alternate name for your map!
I'm very concerned with the minerals in the middle as well, especially since they have no gas. The decision to put them there was based on the theory that you either choose to expand towards the center progressively and safely, though suffering an economical disadvantage as you do so, or you choose to expand to the gold, splitting your forces between your expansions and your main.
I'm almost definitely going to change the name now too.
On July 06 2010 20:28 stet_tcl wrote:
Nice map. Looks well made and fun to play..
The only thing I can think of that needs fixing is that the two gold expos on the edge of the map seem extremely easy to hold. I would suggest moving the ramps a bit closer to center. Right now it looks very dangerous to move all the way around to attack the expansion.
Other possible issues may be what majloon said and perhaps you could make the center a bit more open. But I wouldn't fix these before I got some games played on the map.
The more I look at it, and the more comments that are made about it, the more I agree; they would probably be a bit too easy to hold. I like the idea of moving the ramp closer to the center. As for the center -- it's actually deceptively open I feel, but I could be wrong. I tried to balance out "openess" and flanking/LOS options.
On July 06 2010 20:23 HeyitsClay wrote:
it looks real nice thats for sure, i would play it
Thank you :D
On July 06 2010 20:45 Pigge wrote:
The choke into the natural is way too thin, a zerg player would be at a disatvantage even though hes defending.
It's pretty thin, actually I'd like to know the "ideal" distance for a natural choke. What are your thoughts on this? I've modified it so it's 6 units, which is two gateways.
On July 06 2010 20:47 arnold(soTa) wrote:
to many gold expansions, and to little gas imo, otherwise it looks funky and cool to play on. Like the terrain and layout otherwise, n1
Thanks, I'm definitely considering adding more gas. I don't want the map to be gimmicky/frustrate players, or force them into particular strategies, and if reducing the gas as you expand has any one of these effects, then I'll abandon that idea.
On July 06 2010 20:49 Ftrunkz wrote:
is that two entrances to the main? Or am i looking at this really wrong?
Nope, there's only one entrance. You may be looking at the "reaper cliff".
On July 06 2010 20:50 Anselm wrote:
The two gold expansion are interesting. I wonder if you would consider making them less defendable by making the chokes wider. Also, if you want to take away gas, it should be from the easier-to-defend gold expo so there is a strategic decision making process in which one to take first.
I love the shape of the map and being a zerg player, I love the easy to defend nat. Can that be blocked off with one 3x3 building? Also love that the cliff jumping units have a cliff to get through. Excellent.
Thanks, I'm glad you like the cliff jumping bit. It's one of my favourite parts, and I'd love to see it used to some effect. As I mentioned before, I'll definitely rework the golds (and I'm sure they'll be reworked over and over after testing) to make them a bit harder to defend.
On July 06 2010 20:50 Merikh wrote:Keep it how it is, there's no maps that has 1 gas expo's so you can't down it until you try it  What I was looking for in a map , also nice texturing (I always loved the way blistering sands was textured)
Thanks, I love the texture set for Blistering Sands too. It's a lot of fun to play with.
On July 06 2010 20:52 Tone_ wrote:
Really really impressive map. People will ofcourse though tell you that there are too many golds / complain about whatever is in the middle.
But actually including some thought process into commenting I'd say that late game it may be easy to camp outside the two gold mineral double choke, but that would leave your main / nat and all your tech bare and vulnerable.
Taking the middle expos would be far from "pointless", as it's the main area your army will probably end up, taking both of them, yes that would be hard to defend. But it's a nice feature and makes the map different.
Thanks! I'm so glad you noticed that theoretically it may pose a big risk to take the double golds as you have to deal with leaving your main wide open.
On July 06 2010 20:56 Phayze wrote:
3rd needs a second geyser, as said, then ill +1 it, or swap the third and 4th, make the 4th have geysers and make the third have 0 if you tsill want to limit gas. If anything remove the gas at the gold behind the main. Terran insta win o_o lifting up looks SUPER strong there.
Forgive my noobness, but what's "+1 it" mean? :D
On July 06 2010 21:02 NoM.NoM wrote:
The map looks awesome, but I suggest that you put destructable rocks at the golds to prevent lifting from start, since the distance is so short. Good job on the map! :D
Thanks! Adding rocks seems like a great idea. But here's something to consider -- would a terran lifting to the golds, assuming I made them more difficult to defend with less build area, really be that bad, or would it simply be an alternative, viable strategy? If it was simply an alternative strategy with advantages and disadvantages, I'd love to get that working.
On July 06 2010 21:05 NeoLearner wrote:Could you run it through the map analyzer if you get it to work? I'm interested in openness and cliff-walk rush distances. It looks interesting. Did you start from Blistering Sands? Map size/shape, textures and high-ground placement seems to be almost identical... What normally bugs me most is bad (read NO) use of textures but yours is pleasing to the eye... As for balance, rush distances from cliff to cliff seem close. I would expect reaper openings. Or Main looks big compared to the middle ground of the map. Siege tanks can leapfrog from high ground to highground and contain hard... The placement of those combined with the cliffs makes me assume you play Terran I like the double gas expansions. The one below the opponents main seems very hard to hold. The 1 gas expansion is a nice idea, but I never really likd mineral-only expansions to begin with. Must be a Zerg thing... ninja-EDIT: Link for reference: http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/sc2-map-analyzer/
I'd absolutely LOVE to get the map analyzer to work, but unfortunately it simply gives me some strange error saying I must run it in admin mode -- even though I am an admin! I think it may be because I'm running windows 7 64 bit.
No, I didn't start from Blistering Sands. I started on a huge map and edited the size down as I went along, so the comparisons are either coincidental or I stole the idea subconsciously! I'm glad you like the texture use. I've spent about 4 working on environment art for video games so it's in my nature to make things like this look as pretty as possible :D
On July 06 2010 21:23 Sethronu wrote:
It kinda looks like there are far too many chokes and narrow spaces in general. I'd get claustrophobia playing this map, especially if I were Zerg.
I find it very interesting that you mentioned this, since I play zerg and I thought I would enjoy the options to flank on this map. The middle is actually deceptively open as I mentioned before, but the question of whether or not the gold mineral areas are too constrictive is something I'm looking at very closely.
On July 06 2010 21:48 eNyoron wrote:
While it is chokey, the multiple ramps and paths make flanking look quite easy, and the expansion patterns zerg can use on this map are phenomenal.
Honestly this map just looks really balanced overall.
Wow, thanks :D
On July 06 2010 22:47 Largeman wrote:
Any reason you have decided not to include watchtowers?
Great question! I really tried to include them, but I just couldn't justify it! I felt like wherever I added them, I just did it for the sake of it. I feel like if I add them at some point, it'd be because testing dictated that watchtowers would add something to the gameplay.
On July 06 2010 23:04 cloudJR wrote:
I really like the mineral only expos, but I think having 4 golds is a little much. The map is definitely creative and I like the style of it. Plus no watch towers is always a plus in my book lol.
Thanks, wow people are really split on the gold/mineral only/less gas expansions. I was hoping there would be a strong opinion one way or another.
On July 06 2010 23:41 Keype wrote:
Awesome map!
Aggre with you some destructible rocks should help out the balance some,might be a little to many chokes but real nice done! Keep making!
Thanks, I will keep making maps as long as people enjoy playing on them! This is my first map, so I've got tons to learn. I hope after a few maps I'm putting out stuff that's considered for play at high levels.
|
try running the map analyzer by right-clicking and choosing "Run as Admin".
I love the map and would for sure play it though the name gold rush makes the old TF2 player in me cry and little and never want to attack ever again.
|
Please don't change the map too much from how it currently is though as rest assured its better than 95% of other user created maps atm. Destructible rocks at the closest gold and I think it'd be great.
|
Definitely need rocks at the high yields that are placed close to the main bases. Watch towers near the high yields or on the high ground in the middle of the map would be cool as well.
Btw this is definitely a high quality map, most people just fail and make undefended naturals that are far away from the main but it looks like you got a brain! I would play on this over many of the current blizzard maps.
|
I disagree about the rocks at high yields because look at the ground distance... It is SOOO far from the main.
My primary concern is the nat choke. Zerg will have a nightmare on this map because P and T can safely FE with minimal defenses and it will be awful to push later. Meanwhile, there is no 'easy' third to take. There is kind of an unspoken rule that if the 3rd is hard to take, the nat needs to be slightly more favorable to Zerg for balance.
I really think widening the choke and removing much of the "tank camp zone" as you head towards the natural from the center of the map will make this map very nicely balanced and dynamic.
|
mmmmm veaaaal
It actually looks really interesting. The 4 gold expansions might be really interesting but I agree with some people that you may want to incorporate some destructible rocks.
|
First impressions is that there is a clear divide right down the middle of the map. All a player needs to do is defend the high ground pod area and he’s secured his main, nat, third and 2 golds from ground attacks. Following this logic, a player may be more likely to adopt an air/drop strategy, but with diminishing returns on gas as you take expansions it may be harder than it looks. Just food for thought.
Something you may want to test is to change where the reaper cliff is. As I said, defend the high ground pod and you secure your bases, in addition you defend that cliff as well. I think if you move the main minerals to the top and bottom respectively and put the reaper cliff between the center minerals and the gold.
This does three things:
1) Punishes people sitting on that pod
2) Gives you a flank/counter if you lose your pod.
3) Makes gold expos more vulnerable
Of course, zerg don’t have any cliff walkers, so you’ll have to test that for balance. Especially stalker/colossus.
I like the map though, keep working on it!
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2010 02:16 Sleight wrote:
I disagree about the rocks at high yields because look at the ground distance... It is SOOO far from the main.
My primary concern is the nat choke. Zerg will have a nightmare on this map because P and T can safely FE with minimal defenses and it will be awful to push later. Meanwhile, there is no 'easy' third to take. There is kind of an unspoken rule that if the 3rd is hard to take, the nat needs to be slightly more favorable to Zerg for balance.
I really think widening the choke and removing much of the "tank camp zone" as you head towards the natural from the center of the map will make this map very nicely balanced and dynamic.
Very interesting points. I'm definitely going to give the natural choke some more attention to ensure Zerg players aren't disadvantaged. I'm not sure what you mean about the "tank camp zone" - could you explain it a bit more please? I'm trying to be very cautious with tanks. I don't want to render them useless, but at the same time I want there to be a variety of options for flanking any areas where they might want to set up shop.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2010 02:30 cronican wrote:
First impressions is that there is a clear divide right down the middle of the map. All a player needs to do is defend the high ground pod area and he’s secured his main, nat, third and 2 golds from ground attacks. Following this logic, a player may be more likely to adopt an air/drop strategy, but with diminishing returns on gas as you take expansions it may be harder than it looks. Just food for thought.
Something you may want to test is to change where the reaper cliff is. As I said, defend the high ground pod and you secure your bases, in addition you defend that cliff as well. I think if you move the main minerals to the top and bottom respectively and put the reaper cliff between the center minerals and the gold.
This does three things:
1) Punishes people sitting on that pod
2) Gives you a flank/counter if you lose your pod.
3) Makes gold expos more vulnerable
Of course, zerg don’t have any cliff walkers, so you’ll have to test that for balance. Especially stalker/colossus.
I like the map though, keep working on it!
Thank you :D I'm glad you pointed out the possible "divide down the middle" issue. I'm hoping that, with a distance of around 40 units, covering the entirety of the platform and its surrounding flanks (which, as you said, effectively splits the map in half) is going to stretch any army, even at 200 supply.
Also, I'm certainly open to moving the reaper cliff and the main minerals around a bit. I like the configuration you suggested, I'll keep it in mind in case these issues arise in testing.
|
id recommend decreasing the length of the naturals choke, as well as increasing the width to 8, or 10/12 if you leav the same length.
also, imo the gold expos are a bit exlcuded from the rest of the map. having to split your forces is a good thing, however the chokes to the gold mins are very narrow, differenceiating them from the rest of the maps gameplay. also they are too easy to hold. the high ground advantage at this distance to the actual minerals is quite low btw.
one more thing, i think the choke between the high grounds in the middle and the reaper cliffs should be wider. this would make both paths a viable choice to go for and adding more depth. i dont think a strategic decision wich path you want to take is anyhow useful.
i think you did a great job at designing the middle. its really nice.
~~
just noticing, the natural *looks* a bit differenciated too; i think it would add speed and better gameplay if its more in conjunction with the middle.
|
First off, I really like the overall shape of this map and think that it would be fun to play on competitively. And while I like the placement of all of the expansions, my biggest problem is with the high yields. While they may be a fair distance out of the way, they just seem far too easy to defend if you can get a decent number of troops over there. I think that two of the gold expos should be taken out, four just seems like too many, especially when they're easy to defend. Perhaps replace them with regular expos. But mainly I think that the areas just need to be made more vulnerable somehow.
Definitely an interesting map though, I think it could definitely be used competitively with just a few adjustments.
|
The one gas expo seems cool, but we we won't know how it'll turn out until we test it. I'm beginning to see alot of variation with resource distribution in newer maps, and I'm loving it. Perhaps in the future there would be expansions with more than 2 gas similar to Outsider in BW (like an expansion with all the gas, and another with all the minerals, that would be fun :D). As for the map, I like how much thought you've put into it, the style of map, and the overall visual detail, but as a zerg player I'm a little scared to play this map (only a little bit though). Also, I'm wondering, in a long macro game, how the expansions will actually be split. I see with the LOS blockers that the map might be meant to be split horizontally, but for me it would make more sense to expand vertically as the vertical-middle area is easier to defend than the horizontal-middle area. This means that no one would ever expand in the middle, maybe very very late in game, especially since theres no gas.
|
Rocks at the gold because terran can lift at the begging i think, everything else is good, nice map.
|
The super big ledge that dominates the natural choke = "tank camp zone." Tanks camping there completely defend the natural without any recourse or possible threat to them barring some kind of air, which means fast natural is easy and impossible to stop.
The danger with this map is the ease of access to every base BUT the natural and main, meaning that Zerg is SOL when it comes to expanding again because the 3rd and golds are so far away, hellions, stalkers, and lings can move quickly across the map and threaten every base simultaneously.
EDIT: Also, that little outcrop near one of the possible thirds in the main means that 2-3 tanks can completely defend that base from ground pushes with only minimal other ground troops. Terran should never be able to expo easier than Zerg.
|
Something I noticed about the map is that both the main and the natural have 8 mineral patches each. I don't really have any insight on how this affects the game really, but I just thought it was worth pointing out that normally mains have 9 mineral patches and as a general rule naturals are less potent than mains. Of course it's your map and your decision, so if you did this on purpose and there is a reason for it, then by all means keep it this way.
|
hrm...the design of this map reminds me of Blistering sands a little bit (narrow choke and all). I think it would be easy the defend the choke for the main/nat because of the cliff over the choke.
I'm not too fond of the double gold expos, just because it'll give you a lot of minerals, but your gas will be kind of on the low side (depending on what you make, of course). Besides, 1 gold expo per side is usually good enough, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
