|
Crescent Landing (WIP)
Version 0.2
After some feedback and a little PvZ play testing, I've made some changes that fixed most of my concerns with vertical rush distances and zerg expanding issues.
Overview
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyzer
+ Show Spoiler +
164x164
Main-Main
Vertical-34 seconds
Horizontal-44 seconds
Cross-49 seconds
Nat-Nat
Vertical-30 seconds
Horizontal-44 seconds
Cross-49 seconds
Concerns
-Considering changing the middle low ground expansions to high yields, but I'm concerned players would just take them as 4ths with horizontal positions against zerg, or vertical positions in any match-up.
-Not too sure what to do with the large air gap between mains. Could possibly remove the low ground mineral line, but keep the path, and add a shakuras plateau like expansion blocked by rocks to fill the air gap. Not too sure though.
-Just noticed this, but it seems as if the main sizes are a bit too big. Easy fix.
Change Log
Version 0.1
+ Show Spoiler +Spent most of my day today pounding out this map, and from what I can tell, it turned out to be a decent map. Not exactly flawless, but thought I'd share what I have so far. As always, feedback is more than welcome! Overview![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lUalx.jpg) Analyzer+ Show Spoiler +AestheticsFor now, I plan on using Meinhoff texture set. 164x164 playable Main-Main33sec vertical 50sec cross 44 sec horizontal Nat-Nat28 sec vertical 44 sec cross 39 sec horizontal Concept and ConcernsMy goal was to make a map with a dynamic play, to where the spawn positions drastically determine strategy. Where this is true on most 4 player maps, I wanted a map where a player couldn't generally assume a macro opening is safe, or if early pressure is a good investment, simply by the map shown on the loading screen. Ideally, this map should encourage players to open fairly standard, but transition into macro or aggression once the opponent's spawn position has been revealed. However, I do have concerns about the rush distances and 3rd to 3rd encounters with horizontal spawns. I like the general concept and the layout, but I think I'll need to change up some design aspects to fix some issues that may be present with rush distances.
|
If both players spawn horizontally, you can always just expand vertically and it's fine. Great map in my opinion, I'm sure I would enjoy playing on it.
|
This is how I red the concept of the map.
"I wanted to make a map where players guess at the start where the opponent spawns, if they guess wrong, then they are in shit."
|
Looks great to me; very well thought out.
|
The "helipads" or whatever you want to call them in the bases seem useless. As an attacker not only do you never want to drop your stuff there but there is readily available level 3 terrain both closer to the center of the map and closer to the mineral line for drops. As a defender you never need to build there because buildings outside it can see in just fine. It serves no purpose as a reaper connector. Its no better of a ninja build spot than just building in the back corner. In short it seems useless because its in the back of the base.
Also I realize no gold bases is "trendy" but those middle low ground bases are pretty sad as blue.
|
On December 01 2011 21:50 Sea_Food wrote:
This is how I red the concept of the map.
"I wanted to make a map where players guess at the start where the opponent spawns, if they guess wrong, then they are in shit."
A four player map where players can spawn in any of the four positions, and strategy changes depending on where your opponent spawns? When did they start doing that?
Forced-spawn maps that don't require that you find your opponent first and allow you to do whatever build you want regardless of position or opponent are the anomaly, not this concept.
I too dislike the helipads, but the rest of the map looks pretty good to me.
|
It looks a lot like (6)Chain Lightning in BW (but for less player) so ... i like it 
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pQxa5.jpg)
Red Circles:
I noticed that the two open spaces in each red circle do not match. It's not a critical asset, but they are simply not the same.
Green Circle:
The natural choke inside the green circle appears smaller than all the rest.
Yellow Circles:
Every natural has a small piece of land that sticks out - except for the bottom left. Why?
Blue Circles:
A lot, lot air space. You're significantly, and highly encouraging drop play in those areas, especially with the drop zones in each main base which I feel is too unnecessary. If anything you should make it all one level and leave a small piece blocked by LosB.
Black Dots:
Put rocks here if you don't want to disable close spawn.
EDIT: I made a mistake. The black dots were placed in the wrong area. Put them on the far left and far right on the two middle bases' ramps (9 and 3 o'clock) if you want to disable close spawns.
Conclusion:
I can tell for one thing that ESV gave you a helping hand, and I can tell you did NOT pound time into this map because it hasn't even been a full week since your last one, let alone you only spent a day on it, so you can expect problems to arise. There are so many little things that are not symmetrical/identical. I can tell that you are also trying to be more technical with features. Timetwister, do you know why haven's lagoon was chosen for the TL Map contest? It wasn't necessarily the concept - it was simplicity. When you make your maps you need to focus on that.
|
On December 02 2011 03:03 IronManSC wrote:
Red Circles:
I noticed that the two open spaces in each red circle do not match. It's not a critical asset, but they are simply not the same.
I just want to elaborate on this by pointing out the high ground just above the bottom blue circle and below the top blue circle does not match either. It looks as though on the bottom one you could wall in units and attack the low ground expansion.
|
Updated OP for version 0.2
|
Reminds me of shakuras plateau, only sort of rearranged. I dunno about the debris leading to the 3rd's between vertical spawns though. I also think the mains are a bit big. If they get too big they can be a headache to manage with regard to drops. As for the debris, I do think it would be fine to delete it.
|
On December 02 2011 11:35 MisfortuneS Ghost wrote:
Reminds me of shakuras plateau, only sort of rearranged. I dunno about the debris leading to the 3rd's between vertical spawns though. I also think the mains are a bit big. If they get too big they can be a headache to manage with regard to drops. As for the debris, I do think it would be fine to delete it.
Rush distance would be too short if they were removed. If I remove the path all together, then zerg has no where to take 3rd if its horizontal spawns.
|
I would imagine zergs can't really knock down the debris very quickly, especially if they're going for a fast 3rd. I honestly think the entrance to that expansion can be moved over a bit, to extend the vertical rush distance, and then have the debris removed. For instance, if the entrance were moved to just outside the natural's choke, I think it would be fine.
|
Yeah, its a troublesome problem. However, I'm in the process of making drastic changes to the map, which should solve it :p
|
The concept is okay, but first off as Ironman has pointed out, there are a lot of symmetrical imbalances on the map that aren't the kind of imbalances that favor one race over another, rather imbalances that make spawning in one specific location much much different from spawning in another (eg. FFE looks to be a lot easier on the top right spawn than in any other spawn). I also think that if you're going to put that much air space as Ironman has pointed out, it might be better just to remove the drop zones in the main bases.
Second, one thing I would personally like to see is the two expansions in the valleys in the middle of the map turned into High-Yield Expansions, and one Xel'Naga Watchtower in the middle with its radius just large enough to spot potential workers mining from either of the gold expos. I think it encourages a risk factor when if comes to choosing which expansion to take, and I like that sometimes.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 02 2011 03:03 IronManSC wrote:Red Circles:I noticed that the two open spaces in each red circle do not match. It's not a critical asset, but they are simply not the same. Green Circle:The natural choke inside the green circle appears smaller than all the rest. Yellow Circles:Every natural has a small piece of land that sticks out - except for the bottom left. Why? Blue Circles:A lot, lot air space. You're significantly, and highly encouraging drop play in those areas, especially with the drop zones in each main base which I feel is too unnecessary. If anything you should make it all one level and leave a small piece blocked by LosB. Black Dots:Put rocks here if you don't want to disable close spawn.
EDIT: I made a mistake. The black dots were placed in the wrong area. Put them on the far left and far right on the two middle bases' ramps (9 and 3 o'clock) if you want to disable close spawns. Conclusion: I can tell for one thing that ESV gave you a helping hand, and I can tell you did NOT pound time into this map because it hasn't even been a full week since your last one, let alone you only spent a day on it, so you can expect problems to arise. There are so many little things that are not symmetrical/identical. I can tell that you are also trying to be more technical with features. Timetwister, do you know why haven's lagoon was chosen for the TL Map contest? It wasn't necessarily the concept - it was simplicity. When you make your maps you need to focus on that.
Wow, with these positional imbalances he might become a Blizzard mapmaker soon :O
|
I couldn't say I like this map. Middle expansions means nothing at all, unless you are already far ahead you can not take them. Siege lines (collosi, siege tank and broods) and even marines can easily destroy it since it is low ground and easily reachable.
As said before it highly encourages drop play which i don't like either. Drops should not be considered as easy and safe to do, hard to counter, deals huge damage. They should be hard to do, hard to counter and when done properly deals huge damage. Dropper should take some risks. To be honest I could not see this behavior in any blizzard maps either.
I personally prefer no Xel'naga towers at all. It ruins the game in my opinion. kill mid game scouting and surprise factor in many cases. Generally there is no war fought to gain its vision. One d-ball emerges and take it, then another come and claim it etc..
Last words, i like rotational maps more. Mirror maps are simply boring in my opinion. They always encourages split map case and long boring games with 1000's of minerals banked.
Thanks,
|
Laserist is a genius and everything he says is true.
|
|
|
Nope I'm serious, you said what I would say but I'm too lazy to write it down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nsCOO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WRI4K.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VFdBm.png)
