|
On January 12 2019 02:27 Doko wrote: I'd like to see a map where the path between natural and 3rd has a slow zone but the 3rd has rich geysers, basically forcing you to commit a bit more to defending it to reap the rewards. Sounds like a massive pain in the butt for Zerg and probably the other races wouldn't appreciate it either.
|
Can't wait for a map where every base has 1 rich gas geyser instead of 2 normal :D
|
How many people do actually submit "challenge" maps? I would guess it's much less than the standard one, because they can't have them in stock?
|
The inhibitor could be placed for drop play or for two sides mineral base (where you can put your base on either side) but i'm not really sure...
I guess it could be a fun thing. But i don't really see options for new features on map that don't break gameplay. But i like it because it reminds me of clan wars that TB did a while ago.
|
Another contest, damn feels like we had one a few months ago. Good luck to all competitors .
|
On January 12 2019 03:08 opisska wrote: How many people do actually submit "challenge" maps? I would guess it's much less than the standard one, because they can't have them in stock?
There usually are twice as many standard/macro maps submitted than the challenge maps.
|
I'd like to see a map with mineral-only third bases (or single, regular geyser), but the fourth bases have rich vespene geyser(s). Currently, Zerg gets access to 8 gas unbelievably quick. a 6 gas protoss is terrifying. Terran doesn't use the 3rd base gasses too terribly fast. It'd change the midgame dynamic a lot. The reward of 3 base gas income (4 base gas income for zerg) in previous iterations of Starcraft was very great, but now 3 base+ is not only standard, its required and expected. I wonder if it would be an indirect way to help Terrans midgame while still keeping the late game of the other races going well. Increased risk but huge reward once you secure your 4th base.
|
On January 12 2019 12:23 LHK wrote: I'd like to see a map with mineral-only third bases (or single, regular geyser), but the fourth bases have rich vespene geyser(s). Currently, Zerg gets access to 8 gas unbelievably quick. a 6 gas protoss is terrifying. Terran doesn't use the 3rd base gasses too terribly fast. It'd change the midgame dynamic a lot. The reward of 3 base gas income (4 base gas income for zerg) in previous iterations of Starcraft was very great, but now 3 base+ is not only standard, its required and expected. I wonder if it would be an indirect way to help Terrans midgame while still keeping the late game of the other races going well. Increased risk but huge reward once you secure your 4th base.
Zerg doesnt really need to take more than 4gas before their 4th base finishes
|
i hope in/on tlmc 13 we can get destructible "losb"
|
On January 11 2019 23:15 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 22:06 BisuDagger wrote:On January 11 2019 13:17 NewSunshine wrote:On January 11 2019 13:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: i love the idea of the inhibitor fields, i'm 100% in favor of any feature that makes positioning more important and encourages players to think a little more about where they're moving their units.
good luck to all of my fellow mapmakers! Yep. This game might not have a significant high-ground advantage like Brood War, but you can create basically the same dynamic by introducing slow-zones in certain low-ground or attacking areas. This can also make a "rush" map where defense is more reasonable, given the right construction. Inhibitor Zone Generator turns the maps into UMS imo. The high ground advantage was a way more organic way of creating map advantages. I think slowing units down should only come from casted abilities and not be a permanent ability. Are the generators at least destructible? If so, then I'm willing to give them a chance. Lower mineral count: Is this exactly what it means or can we have higher mineral counts too? I think bases mine out very quickly. Not that it's a bad thing, but mining patches out any faster seems absurd. I'd like to see maps with heavier mineral counts at the third or fourth base locations so the mid-late game is propped up more. I don't know if it would lead to better games, but I'd like to see it in action and find out. The lower mineral count obviously exists just to make mineral barriers that can be opened in a reasonable time, it doesn't seem targeted to actual bases.
You could also pair them with the rich geysers to make bases specifically for the extra gas income, but using them as path blockers will probably be more common
|
Zerg doesnt really need to take more than 4gas before their 4th base finishes
Right, which is why I said "has access to" instead of "is mining from". There are 6 gas builds that do exist on 3 base currently with the return of Muta play, to be fair.
|
Might hop into one of the challenges
|
|
Crystallizer looks like the exact kind of map that I would instantly veto just over the colours. When you add creep to any map with contrasty white/black edges, it becomes completely unplayable for me.
|
|
|
thank you for eye candy <3
|
On January 18 2019 07:49 opisska wrote: Crystallizer looks like the exact kind of map that I would instantly veto just over the colours. When you add creep to any map with contrasty white/black edges, it becomes completely unplayable for me.
It honestly doesn't feel that bad ingame to me.
|
On January 21 2019 06:50 Avexyli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 07:49 opisska wrote: Crystallizer looks like the exact kind of map that I would instantly veto just over the colours. When you add creep to any map with contrasty white/black edges, it becomes completely unplayable for me. It honestly doesn't feel that bad ingame to me.
I will have to check it out ingame, but in general I always had problems with similar color schemes. It's not even that I don't like the look, it just makes me physically uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|