|
Beta Draconis VI v0.6
Uploaded to [NA] [EU]
By: Rife
Stats: Spawns: 2 Playable Map Bounds: 124 x 156
Distances Worker Time: Natural to Natural: 39 seconds (Town hall to town hall).
I would love to hear your comments and feedback!
|
First of all, I love how DIFFERENT this map is. Can't think of ever seeing a map like this before. At a glance the theme seems kinda dull to me, just cause it's so monotone, but it's still kinda pretty. But hey who cares I'm more into gameplay anyways. I feel like Zerging vs a Protoss could be difficult here, just cause of all the chokes they can abuse (those are all 1 FF chokes no?) Holding 3 bases as Toss at a glance seems easy, but drops could dart back and forth between bases quickly and the different attack paths are widely spaced out. To my nooby eyes this seems like a really fun map. With any luck I'll get to play on it some time.
|
This map doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, it works and would probably play out all right, yet it does not seem like a well thought out or outstanding map. To me, this map lacks a unifying concept, and is just a bunch of random ideas and features thrown together for the hell of it. I'll list some examples.
1) The design of the main ramp, a 3x with 2x rocks. A ramp design like that is usually used with maps that have an in base natural feature. That is because the ramp still gives the 1ff wide entrance of a normal ramp for early game, but can be opened during the midgame to allow for aggression against 2 base turtling with the in base expansion. However, on this map there is literally zero reason to have such a ramp design. 1 base turtle play is non-existent in the meta, and hasn't been around since 2010-early 2011. Thus, players are going to expand like normal and the feature is never going to be used, and it will not contribute toward gameplay. So, what's the point of having it? It doesn't hurt gameplay, but nor does a single random los blocker in the middle of the map. Just make the main ramp a normal 1x, or add an in base expansion to take advantage of the ramp design.
2)The bridges in the middle. Choked middle pathways are generally used to encourage outer army movement when it wouldn't be otherwise. So, think Cloud Kingdom. CK had a chokey path that went directly to your opponents bases, but was hard to engage through. Thus, players had to take the long ways around the map to get a good engagement. This is why CK worked out well with macro games, despite the fact that it is actually quite the small map. With this map, encouraging outer army movement with middle bridges doesn't make sense. All your opponents bases/defensive positions are along the outer parts of the map any ways. The middle could be wide open, and army movement wouldn't be affected all that much.
Those are just the two biggest things that really bugged me, but there are a few others. The back door rocks, layout of the top right/bottom left bases, locations of airspace, etc.
When creating a map, you should go in with a concept of how you want the map to play. Then, when designing the map, only add features that contribute toward or strengthen your concept. That is hard to do, depending on how complex your concept is.However, if done correctly, you create a great map. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, and Whirlwind were all designed in such a fashion. That is what made them so great and fun to play on, until the maps got boring from over use of course.
This is a decent map, and you certainly show your understanding of things like proportions and general balance. Yet, you struggled to pull out a strong concept to make this map something worth playing among the dozens of other maps in existence.
|
For marking unbuildable zones, I would suggest Agria Debris and Agria Debris Large doodads, they are pathable but unbuildable by themselves and come in 1x1 and 2x2 versions and are very clear for marking unbuildable zones imo.
|
This map just oozes cool, really nice aesthetics work! If you know the Marathon series by Bungie, it really makes me think of the grungy industrial lava areas in the second game.
I feel like there's a missed opportunity somewhere with the base layout, but I get why you stuck with it. I would love to see this in action to see if it pans out that way.
|
I love the way the map looks, but the unbuildable zones are not clear, the suggestion by Namrufus is great imo, although natural creep might be a good option too, since it will allow Zerg players to spread creep over the rocks, but it might be a bit confusing, so I dunno.
Nat setup is pretty interesting, but I feel like expanding over 3 bases will be pretty awkward, but it's hard to judge without playing. The thing I am worried about the most is blink all ins, since you don't even need a msc to blink into the main. It probably be fine since there is only one place you can blink into the main not from the nat, but you can never know. Overall I really like the map, it will probably favor aggressiveness, which is good
|
On November 14 2013 08:01 Timetwister22 wrote: + Show Spoiler +This map doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, it works and would probably play out all right, yet it does not seem like a well thought out or outstanding map. To me, this map lacks a unifying concept, and is just a bunch of random ideas and features thrown together for the hell of it. I'll list some examples.
1) The design of the main ramp, a 3x with 2x rocks. A ramp design like that is usually used with maps that have an in base natural feature. That is because the ramp still gives the 1ff wide entrance of a normal ramp for early game, but can be opened during the midgame to allow for aggression against 2 base turtling with the in base expansion. However, on this map there is literally zero reason to have such a ramp design. 1 base turtle play is non-existent in the meta, and hasn't been around since 2010-early 2011. Thus, players are going to expand like normal and the feature is never going to be used, and it will not contribute toward gameplay. So, what's the point of having it? It doesn't hurt gameplay, but nor does a single random los blocker in the middle of the map. Just make the main ramp a normal 1x, or add an in base expansion to take advantage of the ramp design.
2)The bridges in the middle. Choked middle pathways are generally used to encourage outer army movement when it wouldn't be otherwise. So, think Cloud Kingdom. CK had a chokey path that went directly to your opponents bases, but was hard to engage through. Thus, players had to take the long ways around the map to get a good engagement. This is why CK worked out well with macro games, despite the fact that it is actually quite the small map. With this map, encouraging outer army movement with middle bridges doesn't make sense. All your opponents bases/defensive positions are along the outer parts of the map any ways. The middle could be wide open, and army movement wouldn't be affected all that much.
Those are just the two biggest things that really bugged me, but there are a few others. The back door rocks, layout of the top right/bottom left bases, locations of airspace, etc.
When creating a map, you should go in with a concept of how you want the map to play. Then, when designing the map, only add features that contribute toward or strengthen your concept. That is hard to do, depending on how complex your concept is.However, if done correctly, you create a great map. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, and Whirlwind were all designed in such a fashion. That is what made them so great and fun to play on, until the maps got boring from over use of course.
This is a decent map, and you certainly show your understanding of things like proportions and general balance. Yet, you struggled to pull out a strong concept to make this map something worth playing among the dozens of other maps in existence.
I see your point about the middle. What do you think about this change?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
When in doubt, add more bridge.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 15 2013 00:31 MarcusRife wrote:On November 14 2013 08:01 Timetwister22 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This map doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, it works and would probably play out all right, yet it does not seem like a well thought out or outstanding map. To me, this map lacks a unifying concept, and is just a bunch of random ideas and features thrown together for the hell of it. I'll list some examples.
1) The design of the main ramp, a 3x with 2x rocks. A ramp design like that is usually used with maps that have an in base natural feature. That is because the ramp still gives the 1ff wide entrance of a normal ramp for early game, but can be opened during the midgame to allow for aggression against 2 base turtling with the in base expansion. However, on this map there is literally zero reason to have such a ramp design. 1 base turtle play is non-existent in the meta, and hasn't been around since 2010-early 2011. Thus, players are going to expand like normal and the feature is never going to be used, and it will not contribute toward gameplay. So, what's the point of having it? It doesn't hurt gameplay, but nor does a single random los blocker in the middle of the map. Just make the main ramp a normal 1x, or add an in base expansion to take advantage of the ramp design.
2)The bridges in the middle. Choked middle pathways are generally used to encourage outer army movement when it wouldn't be otherwise. So, think Cloud Kingdom. CK had a chokey path that went directly to your opponents bases, but was hard to engage through. Thus, players had to take the long ways around the map to get a good engagement. This is why CK worked out well with macro games, despite the fact that it is actually quite the small map. With this map, encouraging outer army movement with middle bridges doesn't make sense. All your opponents bases/defensive positions are along the outer parts of the map any ways. The middle could be wide open, and army movement wouldn't be affected all that much.
Those are just the two biggest things that really bugged me, but there are a few others. The back door rocks, layout of the top right/bottom left bases, locations of airspace, etc.
When creating a map, you should go in with a concept of how you want the map to play. Then, when designing the map, only add features that contribute toward or strengthen your concept. That is hard to do, depending on how complex your concept is.However, if done correctly, you create a great map. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, and Whirlwind were all designed in such a fashion. That is what made them so great and fun to play on, until the maps got boring from over use of course.
This is a decent map, and you certainly show your understanding of things like proportions and general balance. Yet, you struggled to pull out a strong concept to make this map something worth playing among the dozens of other maps in existence. I see your point about the middle. What do you think about this change?
I still don't think that will do much. It's not the middle design itself that done improperly. It's the middle design + the base/defensive locations design. If you want the middle to promote outer army movement, then you have to have locations near the center that are worth defending such as the fourth base, and the high ground around the fourth base, on CK. I would just suggest to create a new middle design that actually fits your concept better than the chokey bridge design.
|
After the evisceration by Timetwister I reworked the map. The first iteration was not what I had in mind anyway. This is closer. There is still some doodad work to be done and minor aesthetic stuff.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I really like the new version, well done!
|
|
That is about 1000x better. Wonderful things happen when many features work together toward a unifying concept.
|
Finished up doodading (For now). Added some screenshots to the op. Added some los blockers as well.
|
I miss the really cool landing pad in the lava from the earlier version.
|
I wanted to get some thoughts on making one of the bases a gold base. I like the idea of making a base gold so that it is a little more enticing to take it as a third under certain circumstances to introduce some more dynamics into the expansion path.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
No one seems to have any objections to the gold bases so I decided to add them. I like them.
|
I think they're fine, but I would scrunch the minerals together to get the geysers out of the way of the ramps. Just my preference.
|
On November 24 2013 03:53 EatThePath wrote: I think they're fine, but I would scrunch the minerals together to get the geysers out of the way of the ramps. Just my preference.
They aren't in the way of the ramps. IMO
+ Show Spoiler +Here is how it is now. Here it is after your suggestion.
|
Bigger problem is that the top geyser in that pic is too far away from the base to be mined fully with three. That one should be moved at least.
Remember that the geyser has a smaller footprint before you build on it, so it's actually less in the way than it looks until you actually take the gas.
|
|
|
|