|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TLcOb.jpg)
On Rainy Days 0.5
Published on NA
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I9eDK.jpg)
Concept: The idea here was to create a map with contrast between very tight choke points and fairly wide open areas. It was also used to experiment with small scattered (with thought) doodads in the open areas to keep them from being too open for SC2 standards and also to break up death balls and increase ability for micro. Hopefully all this rewards the better player and brings good and interesting games as well.
+ Show Spoiler [overviews] +
+ Show Spoiler [data] +
Travel Distance: 44 seconds ramp-to-ramp
Size: 140x140
Bases: 10 (all 8min 2gas)
Tileset:
-Ulaan Dirt
-Ulaan Dirt Cracked
-Ulaan Pebbles
-Ulaan Rocky
-Ulaan Grunge
-Ulaan Rough Rock
-Aiur Small Bricks
-Char Mud
-Ulaan Organic Cliffs
-Aiur Manmade cliffs
Lighting: Braxis Alpha
+ Show Spoiler [analyzer] +
Destructible Rocks and Xel Naga Watchtowers:
There are none. Nor are there any LoSB. Not yet sure where to put any, I would love suggestions. Rocks can be added as necessary.
+ Show Spoiler [changelog] +
0.5 - Touched up some textures.
0.4 - Moved the natural back a few squares.
0.3 - Added a doodad to one of the natural which was left out in version 0.2
0.2 - Changed natural setup, added LoSB on the unpathable high ground areas, added textures
0.1 - initial release
|
Building on bridges? If so, can the central bridges be blocked by planetaries?
|
The wide ones can, yes. It's similar to Bel Shir Beach in that regard, and no one has ever built planetaries there that I'm aware of, plus this map has the additional small bridge which would make that even less viable. The roundabout paths are longer, though, and those might need to be shortened if control over the bridges is too strong. I may need to widen those bridges a bit.
This map is actually a fair bit like Bel Shir Beach, I now see.
|
Nice map really like all the bridges <3
got one concern though can u siege above the natural and lay fire upon the mineral line? It definetly seems like it.
|
You can reach to the minerals but I don't think past them to the workers. Still not necessarily ideal. I think I have to line the cliff with LosB as well because in this version you can see over it, which isn't intentional.
I'm going to adjust the natural anyway and update the map today.
|
I've always wondered why we don't see bridges in popular maps. I think a 1FF wide bridge from a island (in blink range) to connect to the main would be an idea to try out, instead of the normal ramp to high ground base.
|
This map is amazing looking, except the bridges to the main shouldn't have to be split up into 2 side by side. Seems kinda favored against zerg, but overall everything else looks awesome!
|
I like how it looks, and I like the fact that there's rain! I live in a freaking desert. 
And the bridges seem like they would create some racial imbalances, ie sieges, FF, etc. against Z, which isn't that huge a deal because this isn't exactly going to be the next GSL finals map. Mirror matchups would be really cool on this map, methinks.
|
Oh, thanks, guys. I don't want to jump to the conclusion that the bridges are imbalanced, for various reasons. No one complains about this on Destination, for example. Anyway, I'm stubborn and won't admit it's bad without a heap of evidence. 
|
Great map but I think the third base's bridges are way too close to the main, putting siege tanks there with rines behind them I can't see a zerg being able to break that, just move the bridges a bit away from the third and it should work well.
|
I think this looks great, I like the idea of having a bridge choke instead of a ramp choke, that way height and vision arent as much of a factor. I dont think all maps should be like that but this looks interesting for a change of pace.
|
On January 11 2012 17:36 Gfire wrote:Oh, thanks, guys. I don't want to jump to the conclusion that the bridges are imbalanced, for various reasons. No one complains about this on Destination, for example. Anyway, I'm stubborn and won't admit it's bad without a heap of evidence.
I really appreciate that you're trying out original concepts. But BW =/= SC2.
I like the general layout of the map and I'm sure you can do something with it.
|
Alright. I think this requires a question: When a Terran beats a Zerg with a Tank push on this map, does that mean the Terran had to outplay the Zerg to do so? I couldn't say.
I do think people answer this question differently between the mapping forum and when a map is in a tournament. I think with the proper use of flanking this map has the potential to be acceptable, if only after being adjusted a little.
I'm a little disheartened that it is condemned so easily. Even for educational purposes only, I would love to see people play it. I kind of feel this way about new concepts, that they should be played a bit to further our understanding even if they could be considered bad after a look at the map.
I think, due to flanking and the longer rush distance, the bridges at the third wouldn't be as difficult to defend as the one at the natural. I think I'll move the natural back a little for a little more space there, so they can't assault as directly from the bridges, and shouldn't have to gain any terrain advantage that way. It's a pretty subtle change but I think it's good to keep changes small to begin with.
|
Looks really great, i like the idea of having bridges instead of completely open land masses. Idk if its a new idea, but i can't tell how open the big bridge is for zerg surrouds. Also are the ledges close enough for dropped seige tanks and collosus to seige openly on bases? Also can planetaries block the little bridges, if so would that be a map imbalance?
|
Yeah. If necessary, I can make the bridges unbuidable like ramps, I guess. I like the idea of controlling the space and literally not letting someone else through there without some strong way of dealing with it. Whether it's balanced, though, is yet to be seen. Defensive planetaries (not at a base) are basically never used so hopefully this just makes them "viable" and not op.
Do you mean the ledges by the far corner expansions? That corner base can be sieged by it, but those sorts of vulnerabilities matter less in the later game when taking that. It has the potential to swing the favor towards Terran in the endgame of TvZ, which is seems like many maps also do. They are pretty far away in the corners, though, so I think it should be better for Zerg than a map like Shakuras at that stage of the game.
Updating to version 0.4 where the natural has been pushed back a few squares.
|
Those bridges to the natural/third would be a nightmare to play vs a terran as a zerg. You park your tanks in that choke by the third and there is virtually nothing the Zerg can do to break that as all the lings and banelings would be funneled down into a perfect little line for all the tanks to smash to bits.
|
United States10017 Posts
Map looks like a 2 player map of destination and fighting spirit combined in terms of the bridges and the third base. You may need to widen the bridges at the 3rd, or make it one large bridge so that tanks can't just park there and sit.
|
I was hoping that you could flank if they attacked the third. We'll see, if it's too difficult I was thinking of pushing the base back and removing that tree area or something.
The natural ones, on the other hand, are different, because if you set the tanks so far back you have to funnel your units through the choke to attack them, then they won't be close enough to you to actually hit anything. It would only be a contain. Still could be too powerful, though.
The map is actually bigger than it looks, and the siege tank range doesn't seem to reach as far as one would expect.
I guess I'm gonna get some games played so I'll see how it goes.
|
Bridges are a good way to divide big army balls, so that gives a nice defender's advantage the way you used it.
What you need to do is reduce the openness (probably by reducing the map size). Those huge pink chunks you see on the analyzer summary are NOT good.
Also make the third easier/closer and make the transition to a fourth better (add a base at 5 and 11 probably)
|
Nice general concept with more chokes and openess rather than an overall-balance of openess.
I agree on bases being too far from one another. I also think the 12 and 6 oclock bridges should be a wider path, to provide a wider attack path. Right now, armys must push over the bridges on a 3 bases game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CgDEc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kK3cm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dQ9td.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JCrJj.png)
