It's kind of criss-crossy so there are plenty of routes of varying width, and an elevation advantage in the middle, seems promising. When I see a 2-player map generally laid out like this with plenty of expos around the outside edge it makes me smile and dislike Jungle Basin a bit more. Jungle Basin is giving for 2 base and miserly for 3.

Are you worried that tank and Colossus range and even mid-range units can bombard a lot of the main (with vision)? You might want to take that chasm outside the natural and have it wrap around the main more to keep units from getting flush with the main's cliff.

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

January 20 2011 23:13 GMT

#24

Wasn't the ramp to the nat bigger in the version you showed me in IRC? Seems to force FE (maybe you want this?). As far as i can see you reduced the main 2 main distance quite a lot while keeping your initial idea. When do you gonna upload a non-analyzer picture? ^^

Silv.user

59 Posts

January 21 2011 01:38 GMT

#25

Some great maps in here!

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

January 21 2011 08:03 GMT

#26

@dimfish:
actually I wanted to have one (more) expansion in the central area, but it just dos not fit anywhere.
tanks do not reach the mineral line, bu shooting the main or even storming in with colossi should be an option when establishing control on the oopen plateau area where centre connects to main.
i'm afraid i do not get that flushing thing. do you suggest to enlarge the unpathable thing next to the nat

@dezi:
i will have to check that nat ramp later (back home).
do you think i cut down rush distance too much?
playable size is 118x128, so I think I did a good job compressing everything. I cannot make it any more smaller without sacrifycing the more open areas and wide ramps.

@Silv.user:
thx! happy you like them. If you play one of my maps send me your replays and leave me a line here on what you like and dislike. I appeciate all feedback!

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

January 21 2011 10:19 GMT

#27

On January 21 2011 17:03 Samro225am wrote:
@dezi:
i will have to check that nat ramp later (back home).
do you think i cut down rush distance too much?
playable size is 118x128, so I think I did a good job compressing everything. I cannot make it any more smaller without sacrifycing the more open areas and wide ramps.

No, distance seems fine to me.

NullCurrent

Sweden245 Posts

January 21 2011 11:28 GMT

#28

Liking the layout and general shape of it, will be interesting to see when finished!

A few inevitable questions:

Any plans on having watchtowers on it?
One concern I have is that the natural is siegable from the highground close to the third, is this the case?
Also, aren't the fourth and fifth's minerals and gas a bit too close to the edge of the map? (or is that intentional?)

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

January 21 2011 13:36 GMT

#29

2 watchtowers, they will be in the opening north and south of the two unpathable areas in middle of map.

as far as i remember only the gas is siegeable. but I think it is okay. first you should not give away control of area infront f third - then you are contained anyway. second: the highground has a pair of ramps, but unsure about exact construction.
any ideas on that highgroundarea highly appreciated!

distance to borders is pretty much the same at all borders and minerals, but guess there could be a bit more space overall for harass. will need more testing here.
also: you cannot siege from fourth into fifth and vice versa.

dimfish

United States663 Posts

January 21 2011 18:57 GMT

#30

On January 21 2011 17:03 Samro225am wrote:
@dimfish:
actually I wanted to have one (more) expansion in the central area, but it just dos not fit anywhere.
tanks do not reach the mineral line, bu shooting the main or even storming in with colossi should be an option when establishing control on the oopen plateau area where centre connects to main.
i'm afraid i do not get that flushing thing. do you suggest to enlarge the unpathable thing next to the nat

I am ok with your layout of expos around the outside edge, I think the size of the map and the arrangement of paths for criss-crossing and possibly maneuvering around enemy armies will work out.

As for my suggestion for protecting the main from getting pounded by low ground attacks, this image shows the current main on the left and the extended chasm on the right. With a bigger chasm enemy units on the low ground can't move right up to the bottom of the main cliff (flush) along the entire perimeter, just some of it.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

January 21 2011 22:12 GMT

#31

thx for elaborating on this potential problem. good point here.i think i will try it, but make it much more narrow. sothat i can keep the openness on the plateau.

here is an image from the xelnagas.
+ Show Spoiler +

dezi

Germany1536 Posts

January 21 2011 23:19 GMT

#32

Would like to see the lower XTW slightly pushed to the right and vice versa with the top XWT. This way you gonna further decrease the coverage of the low ground paths next to the nat ramp and force scouting a little more.

I also want to point out that the main looks really small (20CC). Is it possible to stretch it to at least 25 without losing the current layout style?

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

January 28 2011 11:07 GMT

#33

are there any replays or suggestions concerning (2) TENDENCY, as I like to do a redesign of it.

NullCurrent

Sweden245 Posts

January 28 2011 13:59 GMT

#34

A few minor suggestions from looking at the layout

Larger main and/or natural, as currently it is small, and the small natural does not help.
Reshape a few of the mineral-lines as they should have at least two holes and you should also try to have as many minerals close to the command center as possible (eg. when you have three minerals in a zig-zag pattern as on the 4 o'clock, put two close and one a square away).
Maybe try putting the third one cliff level higher, to avoid the awkward double-level ramp to the fourth?
Maybe make the natural ramp one size larger, but that depends on if you're going to reshape the natural.
Also agree with dezi on the Xel'naga Watchtowers.

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

January 28 2011 14:39 GMT

#35

thanks for you suggestions, I think discussion could move to updated in map specific thread. i just used my general mapthread before creating the new map thread.
Apparatus map thread

dimfish

United States663 Posts

January 28 2011 19:34 GMT

#36

On January 28 2011 20:07 Samro225am wrote:
are there any replays or suggestions concerning (2) TENDENCY, as I like to do a redesign of it.

I think this map is cool, what do want to redesign about it? The triple gas expo in center is flashy but exposed so its more of a fun touch than anything to worry about. I think the 3rd is well-placed. Also, I really like the two far blue expos where you can use the middle ramp but you probably want to break down the rocks on your own side to better protect a base there. Or you could concentrate at the middle and just watch the other guy's rocks to make sure he doesn't sneak in an attack that way.

Your map looks fun, what's to redesign? Big problems in testing?

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

February 20 2011 09:25 GMT

#37

(post is obsolet)

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

February 27 2011 17:46 GMT

#38

Kassad
new map on 132x112 / 12bases

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

February 28 2011 10:36 GMT

#39

blatant bump
because I would be so happy to get a few comments n the layout, especially the centre and the XWT placement.

NullCurrent

Sweden245 Posts

February 28 2011 11:19 GMT

#40

A few quick questions and suggestions:

The minerals at the in-base natural seem to be very oddly placed. There isn't much space around it to protect it (or is that intentional?)
The highground behind the in-base natural seems to be pathable, is that intended? It might be hard to defend cliff harass as you can't do much from the main cliff, it will be hard enough to protect from normal drops as it is a small ramp to it.
Gold bases might be a bit easy to hold as it is placed against the wall of the main.
Maybe make the cliff between the natural and gold a bit longer to allow reapers to approach from a different angle.
Why all the pathable cliffs next to the expansions? Seems like siege tank harass will be a staple tactic for terran on this map (how much of the natural (marked in the summary as third) is covered by the siege tank on the cliff next to the backdoor?)
I think the center of the map is quite fine, the rocks are a good addition as it will allow easier flanking in the late game.
I think the XWT placement is fine, it reveals a quite large part of the map, yet it still allows for counter attacks. Maybe move the towers a bit towards the rocks in the middle so the towers won't scout a counter attack if it is moved appropriately (ie. make the towers cover only a part of the middle path each, not the whole as it is now).