I think you need to add more textures and more decoration to the map in general. Otherwise, it looks really, really bland.

Looks decent. You might want to reduce the 100 mineral blocks to something like 40 or 30, just so you can mine them out faster. Xel naga watch towers seem a little poorly placed. Maybe put them behind the line of sight blockers.

Not bad map.

omgCRAZY

Canada551 Posts

July 20 2010 06:02 GMT

Looks interesting, I have no idea if it is balanced enough for tournament play or not. I agree with the above poster that the map needs more textures and things to make it look nicer and the xel'naga towers seem somewhat useless in their current positions.

I do like the setup of the Main and natural.Good work.

monitor

United States2408 Posts

July 20 2010 06:13 GMT

^^ I agree that it needs more doo-dads/textures- will work on this

...but the Xel' Nagas prove to be very useful in game. When someone has positioned their army on the high ground, it helps a lot to control the Xel'Naga to avoid being flanked or surrounded.

Ex 1: I played against a Protoss who had his army gaurding the ramp (sentry/zealot/stalk), and because he controlled the Xel'Naga, he saw my speedlings try to run into his army and surround him. If he hadn't controlled the tower, my roaches would have attacked from lower and lings would have surrounded his army.

Ex 2: I also played a late game vs. Terran, and because he didn't control the Xel' Naga, I was able to do a quick roach harass on his 3rd.

About the minerals/choke-

It was less per patch, but when that path becomes easier to unblock it makes an imbalance. The attacker can waltz in with his army (siege tanks in particular), easily destroy his natural, and be in a good position to destroy the main.

Thanks for feedback!! I will be adding more textures and consider moving the Xel' Nagas.

CharlieMurphy

United States22895 Posts

July 20 2010 06:16 GMT

nm, yea looks ok base layout seems kinda plain to me, but that might be mostly because no deco yet.

monitor

United States2408 Posts

July 20 2010 06:19 GMT

Would you guys be willing to download it and see it in game?

Might give you a better perspective if you play against the AI

EDIT: Uploading version with AI opponent soon

ComradeDeux

United States7 Posts

July 20 2010 08:25 GMT

It would take 20 trips of 1 worker to mine out one of those mineral patches. That is a lot of mining and scouting not being done, and takes a long time. Why not replace the mineral patches with destructible rocks, eh? Mineable patches are meant to tempt the player who's base they are next to, for instance on Destination they gave access to the easiest third option (albeit mineral only) and control over the backing of your natural, making it safer. And that was just stacked 0 minerals, so you didn't need to do all the actual REAL mining to do. And in it's curret state, who would want to ruin a perfectly safe natural by wasting valuable mining time? If you replace it with destructible rocks it offers more paths of attack and makes defense harder which rewards aggressive play, a good foil to an easy to take natural. Also, destructible rocks, besides being obnoxious, can change how the map works in interesting ways. For instance, take Blistering Sands, the destructible rocks are the bane of expanders at first, because attackers can bounce from one entrance to another, but if a protoss player for instance 2 gates and walls off the choke to the natural, he can expand and knock down the rocks and use them as his main entrance/exit. A similar option could be presented here offering an alternate expansion pattern, perhaps taking the natural early, knocking down the rocks that (IMO) should replace those impotent mineral chunks, and then take the opponent's fourth as a third. This seems especially suited for terran mech because terran mech's immobility means they generally want to nab expansions as they slowly encroach towards their opponent (Think Kantrina).

[TL/DR]: No person in their right mind would mine out those mineral patches and the easy nat combined with that would, in my view of it (I could be wrong), promote passivity over aggression. It would be folly to try an agressive strategy that sacrifices an economy on a map where the defender holds all the cards. Switch the minerals with destructible rocks, it adds an addendum to the easy natural that adds strategic depth.

[TLDRWTL] (Too Long Didn't Read Was Too Long) Then you too lazy

-Cheers

Also, first post! I have apparently stopped lurking for this. Hurray?

Edit: I just wanted to say that I actually like the map from a design perspective, but it does need to be made more pretty. I remember seeing a recreation of Chupung-Ryeong that was simply gorgeous. I would look for that for insperation. Keep up the good work!

monitor

United States2408 Posts

July 20 2010 15:38 GMT

I think it would make more sense to lower the mineral count, because if I added destructible rocks, then nobody would use the main entrance. In the first edition, that pathway was not even there. If I made the minerals have 20, would that be decent?

With 25 minerals, it would take 5-10 harvesters to mine that out (possibly w/out a CC near it).

With 100 minerals, it was only really possible to get out if you had taken the natural expansion.

UniQ.eu

Sweden82 Posts

July 26 2010 21:39 GMT

#10

The map looks cool, I would consider making the mains high(+2) ground although, to reduce the risk of beeing walled in for zerg players.
The map also needs work on it's textures and doodads.
I would consider adding destructable rocks instead of low mineral patches, although that's mainly because I'm more faimliar with that.

monitor

United States2408 Posts

July 27 2010 00:16 GMT

#11

Version 1.1 is here! Changes include:

-main on high ground
-3rd's ramp widened
-destructible rocks replacing minerals

DL link updated, check it out!

monitor

United States2408 Posts

July 28 2010 16:42 GMT

#12

Check out iCCup Neo Avalanche in-game!

G_Wen

Canada525 Posts

October 19 2010 23:16 GMT

#13

Neo Avalanche looks great though I do prefer the older icy blue terrain. I also really want to see a competitive version of Cobra.

Nightmarjoo

United States3360 Posts

October 19 2010 23:16 GMT

#14

I played the TSI version of Avalanche in a tourney, and it felt mostly comfortable, from what I was able to play of it. The mains might have been a little tight though, maybe you could expand them towards the map edge a bit?

monitor

United States2408 Posts

January 30 2011 01:58 GMT

#15

Map Thread Reformated. New maps added and information added. Let me know what you think!

Johanaz

Denmark363 Posts

January 31 2011 02:40 GMT

#16

pwn

I really like the layout of Metascape. What are your thoughts regarding the two ramps leading from 3rd to gold?

edit: sorry! missed your new banner by a few minutes.