|
|
|
Cross positions look BRUTAL for any units that are good at abusing terrain (Tanks, Colossus, Broodlords, etc) and the textures are a bit bland, but the screenshot isn't very high res so I could be wrong. I like the third placement but I feel sort of like it should be easier to harass. As it stands now, it's very easy for any race to turtle up three bases and only move out when they are maxed.
Where are the map bounds? Can air units travel around behind the bases easily?
|
On December 05 2010 06:13 prodiG wrote:
Cross positions look BRUTAL for any units that are good at abusing terrain (Tanks, Colossus, Broodlords, etc) and the textures are a bit bland, but the screenshot isn't very high res so I could be wrong. I like the third placement but I feel sort of like it should be easier to harass. As it stands now, it's very easy for any race to turtle up three bases and only move out when they are maxed.
Where are the map bounds? Can air units travel around behind the bases easily?
texture
There is alot of detail in the textures, it took a long while and several layers, though its possible each one might be too subtle. It was the first time trying out this style, though it does look better close up.
The banner is a bit low res, for some reason cant seem to take high res images anymore and antializing seems to have gone on holiday. This happend for my previous map as well.
Its a style im going to try again on a future map when I learn a bit more about the editor.
Turtle
Someone can turtle pretty well, though the ramp on the 3rd is large to make it harder. Also the distances between mains aren't that far so you can apply pressure (-from bottom left main- 50secs (up and sideways) and 1min (diagonal) game time from main ramp to main ramp - running a marine back and forth).
The nat ramp is easier to block off but through the 3rd there is easy access, makes it harder for defender to expand and then turtle. Also turtling would give up the terrain structures and vision on the map which would mean moving out can cost alot of units. (though you would have 3 bases to pay for them i suppose)
Infront of the main/nat there is a nice big space to set up and move with no LOS blockers, and the attacker can take the tower to provide additional support for that area. If the defender moved out to take that terrain and the tower they could secure that area themselves and have the 3rds entrance covered so they can push.
Turtling was an issue i was thinking of due to the layout of expos, but I tried to design the rest of the map to allow both inching forward, and aggressive leaps forward to either push into the base or at least setup a nice forward point to control the map.
LOS
+ Show Spoiler +You cant see it well on the map view, i dont know why it didnt show up, but on the image below (mapview taken through the camera) you can see all the LOS blockers as white smoke (coz of the angle). ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/WAQv1.jpg)
Bounds
+ Show Spoiler +The red areas are the no fly zones which end behind the blue line. It is a little tight behind the mins, but you get there fairly easily. the Nat is probably the tightest for air movement behind it, and if a player has the main/nat/third then getting to the nats mins round the back is harder. Yellow line indicates no more placement and blue line indicates the cameras movement limit (you can see a little beyond that though). You can click air units to go beyond the blue line as well.(as far as you can see) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/SmUsa.jpg)
|
I like where you are going with the base design for the main, natural, and third, but I'd much rather see this on a 1v1 map, because on a 4 player map you're forced to use rotational symmetry, which isn't a big deal, but this case is different because of the base design.
Maybe turn this into an inverse symmetrical 1v1 map with only two spawns. That would be much better that this map because of its layout.
|
On December 09 2010 05:16 Antares777 wrote:
I like where you are going with the base design for the main, natural, and third, but I'd much rather see this on a 1v1 map, because on a 4 player map you're forced to use rotational symmetry, which isn't a big deal, but this case is different because of the base design.
Maybe turn this into an inverse symmetrical 1v1 map with only two spawns. That would be much better that this map because of its layout.
Thats sounds like a good idea, i might try that.
|
On December 09 2010 06:24 Archivian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:16 Antares777 wrote:
I like where you are going with the base design for the main, natural, and third, but I'd much rather see this on a 1v1 map, because on a 4 player map you're forced to use rotational symmetry, which isn't a big deal, but this case is different because of the base design.
Maybe turn this into an inverse symmetrical 1v1 map with only two spawns. That would be much better that this map because of its layout. Thats sounds like a good idea, i might try that.
Thanks, I think it would work better. Good luck, I'll help with feedback when you're done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PLDda.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/L1jtc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/JCUio.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/38XWr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OlkMW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8LB1H.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/p0cj1.jpg)
