|
On July 07 2010 07:34 Najda wrote:
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.
What you are saying was true in broodwar, but is not true of sc2 maps. 8 mineral patches is normal.
|
Nice map. Only thing I dislike about it is the chokepoint leading to nat expo. Seems rather tight, which gives a huge disadvantage towards Z. :\
|
Very very interesting map. I think its brilliant.
It looks like you have to have a lot of control of the middle. Like the middle is already awkward so it makes it a really interesting dynamic. Because if you control the middle you control two gold expansions. So thats crazy. I cant tell if the middle is split in half, if it is dont have it split. Because then you could just never attack each other.
|
I really like the concept, but the main issue I have is that every expo beyond your nat is completely undefendable. This will cause the game to revolve purely on high mobile units.
|
the route into the nat is tank fucking heaven.
|
The dynamic is interesting because holding the square of high ground in front of your base allows access to the gold minerals, which also allow access to the rear of the opponent's main. I think this map could potentially give rise to some interesting openings and counter-openings, as it looks like you have to have control of the high ground square in front of your base, otherwise it's auto-gg.
|
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 basically the same size as the one on Lost Temple... >.>
|
Upload it! I definitely want to try this map out.
|
this map looks good.
i like the double golds, but some of the stuff already mentioned applies. do something to make it more difficult to hold both golds at once. the map overall outside of the double gold area looks sick to me. +1 for reaper launch cliff.
|
I got the map analyzer to work!
Analyzer Data
Influences
+ Show Spoiler +
Openness
+ Show Spoiler +
Shortest Paths
+ Show Spoiler +
Shortest Paths (Nats)
+ Show Spoiler +
Bases
+ Show Spoiler +
Summary
+ Show Spoiler +
I also made some changes:
Changes in 1.0
- renamed map from "Veil" to "Gold Rush"
- added 2nd gas in 3rd expansion
- added destructable rocks at gold to prevent liftoff at start
- increased size of nat choke by 2 units
- increased size of gold chokes
How do I change the title of the post to reflect the new name (Gold Rush)?
|
On July 07 2010 20:15 iamJason wrote:
I got the map analyzer to work!
I am just reading through this thread now (this is the map analyzer guy, by the way) and I wanted to ask you what it was that fixed the map analyzer for you--maybe we can take that discussion offline with PMs. Glad to see you got it going!
Now for map talk--I am in love with this map! This is one of the best community maps I've seen anywhere so far. It's clean, looks sharp, gives me the impression of possibilities when I look at it! I'm a zerg player, and yeah Terrans can put seige tanks on cliffs people, we know. Cliffs do not equal Terran win and Gold Rush (current title now?) is a good example of a balance between cliffs and open spaces.
I think after having people play-test this map it can be a really great one!
Suggestions:
-The center platform-textured high grounds seem a hair too tight with those indentations. The ramps already make chokes, right? Are you imagining forces duking it out across the top of the platform? Just a suggestion anyway.
-I am not convinced gold bases should have rocks, except maybe high-yield island expansions. In my opinion I say no rocks at golds at all, but if people have a heart attack about it maybe one pair of the golds with rocks and one pair without? Honestly, can anyone post a replay pack of someone winning a tournament with "I get gold and I win" strategy? It's fine with no rocks!
Again, very beautiful map!
|
Although it looks like a good map, I think there are too many chokes and too many gold mineral expansions.
Pretty much just repeating previous comments but terran can lift off and land on a gold mineral expansion with an insanely good defensive choke. Widen these choke points.
You've got to add destructible rocks on both of these gold mineral expansions. But, to be honest, I'd remove one of them on each side so there's only two of them left.
|
I think that four high yield bases on one map might be a bad idea (who knows? Probably needs testing).
On maps like Blistering Sands (example) there are only two high yield expansions and they are both guarded by destructible rocks, so I'd rethink the high yield expansions on this map. Also, I'm not so sure about the mineral only expansions. Games are usually more gas heavy and stuff like that, so I'd just scrap those bases, change one of the high yield bases at each corner to a normal expansion (maybe an island expansion) and put rocks at the two remaining high yield bases.
|
Nice map, although I think the two gold expos on both sides look like they're really easy to defend, I wouldn't think twice about grabbing one, which kind of takes the risk factor out imo
|
|
|
I noticed that the two middle expansions have different amounts of minerals.
Is this deliberately done or a mistake?
|
On July 08 2010 20:49 OasiS.oasis wrote:
I noticed that the two middle expansions have different amounts of minerals.
Is this deliberately done or a mistake?
Strangely enough, they actually both have (or had, before I removed them) 6 minerals, but the map analyzer seemed to think one had 7. Weird!
On July 08 2010 20:45 Merikh wrote:
Publish this map to BNET
Done! I played one game on it and almost lost because I was too busy being highly amused at the fact that someone was actually playing my map.
I noticed that I "felt" like there should be watch towers, just because I'm so used to being able to see the center of maps. So I'm probably going to add them in somewhere.
Does anyone want to help me test this map? I'd prefer to spectate other people playing it if that is at all possible.
Oh and if any mods would care to take the time - could the title of this thread please be renamed to "[M] Gold Rush"?
|
Calgary26004 Posts
Holy shit that analyzer data is fucking sick good God.
|
the current trend in user made maps seems to be narrow and chokes. No love for zerg!
|
On July 09 2010 04:13 Dance.jhu wrote:
the current trend in user made maps seems to be narrow and chokes. No love for zerg!
I'm a zerg player actually and I think I tried to overcompensate for any bias. I hope the larger chokes I have now are better for zerg players. Unfortunately I can't update the screenshots/analyzer data with the new chokes because there are issues with the latest patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://jasonlange.com.au/images/GoldRush-influence-11-5.png)
![[image loading]](http://jasonlange.com.au/images/GoldRush-openness.png)
![[image loading]](http://jasonlange.com.au/images/GoldRush-shortestPaths-11-5.png)
![[image loading]](http://jasonlange.com.au/images/GoldRush-shortestPaths-11-5-nats.png)
![[image loading]](http://jasonlange.com.au/images/GoldRush-bases.png)
![[image loading]](http://jasonlange.com.au/images/GoldRush-summary.png)
