|
Updated: 11/10/10
This map has been completely revamped from it's older versions.
Goal: Obnoxiously zerg favored without being bland. ((Please only give suggestions that you feel help facilitate this goal.))
Notes:
- I am really just focusing on the terrain at this point. I have several ideas for other zerg-favored mechanics that are not yet implemented.
- 250x250 playable (Epic size... 256x256 is max lol)
- Minerals have not been placed but rest assured siege tanks cannot hit mineral lines from strange areas.
- I fear that the first 8-10 minutes of most games on this map might just be a macro fest... Which isn't always the most interesting thing from a spectator's point of view. But I also think that once it gets beyond that point things can get pretty crazy. I know a few things that could change this a little but nothing that I think is worth it, which is why I am asking for ideas from you.
I'm open to all suggestions.
Pictures: + Show Spoiler [Editor] +
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer Summary] +
+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer Influence] +
Thanks for looking ^_^
+ Show Spoiler [OLD] +updated: 9/15/10 (4) Entropy Asylum v0.2 + Show Spoiler [Map Analyzer Image] +Changes in v0.2: - Four less rocks in back paths.
- Many paths widened.
- Mains smaller
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/14/10 (4) Entropy Asylum v0.1 Hello everyone This map is in a very early beta stage. Therefore, I am not ready to detail or even outline all of the features. I am only posting this now so that you can see what I'm working on, and maybe to get some more ideas/feedback. I am actually very excited about this map as I feel it will be very zerg favored in the early game as well as having a tendancy to bring things into the late game. This map will highly encourage macro play and smart decision making/army positioning. That, however, is all I am ready to say about it at the moment, and I will forcibly contain my excitement. I want to get your opinions about it before you hear my specific opinions. So without further ado, I present to you (4) Entropy Asylum v0.1 + Show Spoiler [outdated] +Oh yeah the only thing that I willing to say about this map at the moment is that it is absolutely gigantic. Utterly enormous. If you have any thoughts at all about this map, please let me know. Especially if you don't have anything nice to say.
|
Having all of those destructable rocks seems to be a bit excessive, I mean why not just make those 9 and 3 o clock expos islands, it might make the map feel more focused. (cutting out those long paths.) But i do like all the different paths in the middle. So far its a good start.
|
There is literally NO room on this map. Even the map analyzer says so.
I do not like the backdoor parts to your natural. I think it is too skinny and should be removed. Also, four DRs is too much. The middle is way too cramped.
EDIT: Make them islands.
|
To clarify I will be talking about features only as they are brought up (for now).
Having all of those destructable rocks seems to be a bit excessive, I mean why not just make those 9 and 3 o clock expos islands, it might make the map feel more focused. (cutting out those long paths.) Before I can explain the rocks I must first explain the purpose of that base. First I will point out that that base and how it connects two naturals is an extremely core part of the original layout, and it will take a tremendous amount of persuading for me to remove that feature. But actually I am glad you brought the rocks up because it was like the #1 thing that I wasn't sure about. It seemed necessary when I first put them there, but then I realized how long that back path actually is. It is very long.
I also liked how each side of all of those rocks can be very strategical, simply because of their positioning to adjascent bases.
As for losing focus, that's precisely why it's there It is supposed to be an interesting way for a Terran to slow push you but very much so risking a counterattack. It also can just be a nice base to take because it can be very easy to defend if your opponent is far away from you.
Conclusion: I will be removing 4 rocks.
|
There is literally NO room on this map. Even the map analyzer says so. :O I'm not sure you're fully aware that this map is 240x240+ :D
I am actually using the newest version of the analyzer. The oppenness score of 3.75 is actually in the medium range, and it was around 4.5 before the analyzer looked at resources when calculating oppenness (which is probably what you're used to). This map is giant >.<
There are actually a few paths in the middle that I had already decided to widen though.
I do not like the backdoor parts to your natural. I think it is too skinny and should be removed. Also, four DRs is too much. The middle is way too cramped. Again, this map is probably a lot bigger than you think :O
<3
edit: upon thinking about it more i think you may be right if you take into consideration the amount of macroing that would probably happen on this map. I'll widen things up some more. The back path was something i was sure I would widen up eventually.
|
Barrin, there is a bug in the analyzer I spotted from your summary image. It is supposed to print the number of Command Centers worth of space is in the main, and it's printing 0--but the main chokes are identified correctly. I'll check it out for ya
|
Nevermind, it's not a bug, just a poor setting for a new constant. Go into your constants.txt config file and change this line to value "8.0"
float spaceInMainChokeRadius = 8.0
I'll update the default value for a future release. If other value worked fine for the Blizz maps and other community maps I had, so I didn't notice it was so high.
|
Nevermind, it's not a bug, just a poor setting for a new constant. Go into your constants.txt config file and change this line to value "8.0"
float spaceInMainChokeRadius = 8.0
I'll update the default value for a future release. If other value worked fine for the Blizz maps and other community maps I had, so I didn't notice it was so high. lol ^_^ on it
ya i noticed that too at first then i forgot about it.
<3 dimfish & map analyzer. I have actually been using it to balance out this map a lot instead of doing it by eye like i used to. I gotta say this thing just gets more useful the more I learn.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
What's the size of this map?
|
This is not a good map for zerg, even if it is 240x240.
Every time you have a highground/lowground transition or cliff= bad for zerg
Corridors are STILL far too narrow, many are only a CC and a bit wide, this is far too narrow to allow a zerg to get a surround in.
|
Thanks man--I wrote it for myself to do just that! Are you going to replace the summary pic with the correct size of the mains? I think they are quite large compared to Blizz main bases.
|
What's the size of this map? playable is exactly 240x240 actually >.< didnt really look before I guess just remember setting Full.
This is not a good map for zerg, even if it is 240x240.
Every time you have a highground/lowground transition or cliff= bad for zerg
Corridors are STILL far too narrow, many are only a CC and a bit wide, this is far too narrow to allow a zerg to get a surround in. The real idea is mostly to help zerg in the early game, but I and many people feel that zerg late game is plenty strong. Therefore the highground/lowground transitions will be staying :O I really feel they add interesting dynamics to every matchup to be honest.
fixing corridors ^^. no offense but what do you mean "STILL" i only posted one version :D you should have seen the earlier ones I guess I went overboard on tightening everything up lol but it gave me a good sense of how each piece of the highground/lowground can be used.
Thanks man--I wrote it for myself to do just that! ^^ I KNEW YOU WEREN'T DOING IT FOR US!!!
Lol jk
Are you going to replace the summary pic with the correct size of the mains? I think they are quite large compared to Blizz main bases. Yes I'm about to post v0.2 with all suggestions so far that I agree with (including yours).
(edit: now updated)
|
(Bump) Complete revamp. Read new OP and give ideas please! <3
|
First a point of clarification: the ridges at 12 and 6... do they have a double elevation ramp on either side? If so, how is that possible?
|
First a point of clarification: the ridges at 12 and 6... do they have a double elevation ramp on either side? If so, how is that possible? Yes double elevation ramp. It's just two sets of ramps that are as close to each other as possible. I think it's kinda cool personally ^_^
|
I like it, although a small change i'd make ( keep in mind i've made to this day, zero starcraft maps), i would change the ramp out of your main. move it so its closer to the middle to decrease the distance between mains. just a little. for example on the bottem right spot; move it down 2 big squars and to the left 2 squares. a very little change but being zerg i see tanks on the cliff there having quite alot of free shots b4 units can get up that ramp(or any unit really).
But overall, i like the map
|
oh and i would make the xel naga towers haeva bit more range. unless i really underestimate the scale, they dont seem to cover the path that and army would walk over unless your cross map position.
|
I agree it's very cool. It's not really relevant in itself, but the seamlessness it provides to the adjoining territories of differing elevations is quite nice.
Since you have SO much space to work with, why not build the map in such a way that it starts constricted but can be opened up over time (with rocks primarily I guess). If you have a center area that is normal by the usual standards, it would look like a choke point here. Have overlooking areas accessible by rocks. Put the watchtowers there. Have even more space in a ring outside of that, possibly with expansions. This would help add some interest to giant expanses, and it would balance things a bit. Terrans and protoss want defensible, centralized terrain against zerg. If they customize how they expand into the map, this helps them stay in control. But assiduous zergs can just break all the rocks away. However this opens the walkways between expansions, helping a terran or protoss player more quickly march between various expansions and their own defensive positions.
Also I don't want to advocate too heavily in this direction, but hostile units in various places seems cool. Like big friggin armies of 'em.
|
@ KrUnch
Thanks for taking the time to tell me what you think.
This is an insanely large map, so siege tanks don't actually cover the entire entrance there when on the ledge.
Offense: I took care to make sure that at no point in the game can you viably cover your entire base & expansions with static defenses (cannons, bunkers, tanks) alone. The more you try to cover and the farther forward you move, the more vulnerable you become to a solid zerg army. Of course, spine crawlers suffer from this too, but not as much as much as the other races. I think this means that all races should focus on a real army, but I think zerg gets the best end of the bargain.
Defense: It is generally considered that the farther away the attack paths are the easier it is for the Zerg to defend. When attacking a zerg it is extremely difficult to get an angle where you are not completely open to surrounds & flanking positions. The way the entrance is currently placed almost invites the protoss&terran armies into the mouth of a zerg. I also think there's some unlocked potential with good positioning with Neural Parasite Infestors.
Watch Towers on close positions:
I was never a fan of making watch towers in incredibly intrusive positions. There's actually a lot of reasons I did it like this though. The way the high ground currently is makes it a very valuable position but also a very wide open area; important battles will definitely be fought here. I think taking the northern path with the watch tower can be an important stepping stone to taking the high ground, if it comes to that. Those single little pieces of terrain are just for overlords btw (and there is one on the high ground that will go even higher). When I add in the LoS blockers, I think I can make a lot of surprise attack locations for banelings coupled with all of the highground/lowground transitions. I am also worried that siege tanks would be too strong on the high ground if the watch tower was placed up there.
If you still think these things should be changed, please let me know your thoughts.
<3
|
@EatThePain
Tyvm I spent a lot of time on the terrain elevations.
Oh man did I go wild in some of my other maps with destructible rocks. It was really fun. But to be perfectly honest, you have to be very careful about placing destructible rocks when trying to make it zerg-favored. I really love the idea, but it's just not what I'm going for in this map ^_^
Same deal with the hostile units. I will thoroughly enjoy playing with that in another map, but I don't think I want to do that with this one :D
Thanks again though. If you have any other ideas I'm all ears
|
|
|
|