|
Excellent map man! Looks really good and the concepts are really awesome, especially the natural with high ground and D. rocks. I only have two observations about Zerg:
-creep highways would be difficult to produce -the narrow chokes ruins zerg surrounds
I suggest making the natural the expansion closest to the main, and removing the ramp/D. rocks from the high ground. Possible add D. rocks to the ramp currently at the main? Mainly though, change the natural to the closer expansion, giving zerg the close base proximity advantage they deserve.
Nice job, monitor
|
Siege drops are wayy too strong here :l
|
I do not think siege drops are that powerful on this map. Natural cliff have an acess via destructible rocks wich makes it fine. It also makes those cliff a perfect place to nydus worm ( IMHO)
I really like the gold expansions on this map. They are both very easy to take ( very close to the natural/main) and very hard to defend (any army sitting here is exposed to flanks). But if you defend it, you automatically defend your natural. This will punish any kind of turtling player.
I'm not sure that the D rocks at the top rigth and bottom left are needed, but other than that, i think this is a great map.
Good job sir.
|
@dethrawr Tank drops have the potential to be very strong, that's why I added destructable rocks which makes it possible to get up on the natural cliff and build a turret, place a few units or just 1a your army when you get dropped. Look at a map like Lost Temple though or Metalopolis, i'd say those maps are more favorable for tanks in general.
@Tyrran Thanks, glad you liked it! I have removed the rocks at the top-right, bottom-left expansions since I felt they were a bit redundant with the destructable rocks already being in place near the middle. How do you feel about those rocks? A player on page 1 felt they made it hard to sneak an expansion.
|
On June 07 2010 11:27 monitor wrote: Excellent map man! Looks really good and the concepts are really awesome, especially the natural with high ground and D. rocks. I only have two observations about Zerg:
-creep highways would be difficult to produce -the narrow chokes ruins zerg surrounds
I suggest making the natural the expansion closest to the main, and removing the ramp/D. rocks from the high ground. Possible add D. rocks to the ramp currently at the main? Mainly though, change the natural to the closer expansion, giving zerg the close base proximity advantage they deserve.
Nice job, monitor
I didnt really experience that too much in the games I've seen/played but we'll see with more testing. I like the overall look of it at the moment so if i make any big changes (like moving the main ramp/nat) I would rather make a new version. Glad you liked it and thanks for the feedback.
|
Minerals: Mineral patch placement looks a little bland. Try staggering them a bit to make them look nicer.
Three expos in a corner: Also, I don't know how I feel about the three bases. Seems like this map has a fairly easy couple expansions tucked away into the same corner of the map. I'd expand the size of the map and try placing the expansions along a main push path or around a central open area.
What I consider to be important for map design: If you look at my map Mastodon, you can see that I try to place expansions around the sides of the map, but they are all accessible through the major push paths around the center of the map. Also, if you want to make a more interesting map layout, try to avoid encouraging too many tactics like cliff-dropping or back-door busting. What makes for interesting macro games will be maps that are designed with positional advantage and push paths in mind.
|
I suggest making the ramps of the top left and bottom right bases bigger so it is harder to defend. As it is now, expanding there is just as easy to defend as your main. Potentially, Terran could have two wall-offs, and many other aspects that are not smiled upon by me. Generally, one small ramp is good, and from a stand point of other races, this small ramp choke could be exploited too much.
Overall well done (said again), monitor
|
On June 08 2010 13:16 LunarC wrote: Minerals: Mineral patch placement looks a little bland. Try staggering them a bit to make them look nicer.
Three expos in a corner: Also, I don't know how I feel about the three bases. Seems like this map has a fairly easy couple expansions tucked away into the same corner of the map. I'd expand the size of the map and try placing the expansions along a main push path or around a central open area.
What I consider to be important for map design: If you look at my map Mastodon, you can see that I try to place expansions around the sides of the map, but they are all accessible through the major push paths around the center of the map. Also, if you want to make a more interesting map layout, try to avoid encouraging too many tactics like cliff-dropping or back-door busting. What makes for interesting macro games will be maps that are designed with positional advantage and push paths in mind. Minerals: Yes, there are some problems with the mineral patch placements at the moment that I just haven't had the time to fix yet. I have a few weeks to get it right while the beta is down so it should be done by the time its back up for real, or release at the latest.
Expansions: This is something that I've thought about, that the expansion has a bit of "west vs east" feel to them right now and its rather divided in that sense. I'm not sure what the solution to this would be, the map is already bigger than Blizzard 1v1 maps but the base to base distance is about what it should be, I may move the top-right/bot-left expansions around a bit, same with the expansions that are to the right and left of the bases to make it feel a bit more "alive".
Other points: I'm not sure I agree that this map encourages cliff-dropping, especially considering the natural expansion cliff is accessible by ramp. I think we have slightly different views on map design, I like having a more open middle ground.
|
I really like the layout and spacing of the bases. Some aspects of it seem somewhat one dimensional. I suggest adding two Xel'naga watchtowers for quick checking of the corner expansions.
|
|
Nice overall design. I understand you want the golds to be super-dangerous but very tempting as a third base, but I think the way they are now only two things could happen: one player has both, or neither player has them. I like the close golds but love heavy macro games where both players have golds that close to one another like on metalopolis.
Another thing that probably needs a tweak is the corner expansions. Not sure why you have them blocked by rocks. But a base there seems a tad too safe considering how far away it is from the main. A second ramp towards the opponent's main might help, but that doesn't change the run distance from the opponent's natural. That expansion would feel exposed enough if there were another ramp from the highground above the opponent's natural in addition to that, but then that gives an easy third base to take and defend. I like the Xel-Naga idea to keep an eye on them.
I like the idea of the high-ground above the natural with destructible rocks, however wouldn't every player use their army (or part of it if they're feeling threatened) to take them out early on? Only playtesting can answer this but they seem like something that would almost insta-kill you if you forgot to take them out because that's such a great proxy location. Rocks everybody takes out every game doesn't sound interesting, rather there be a reason a player might keep them there.
And sorry if this doesn't make sense because it's super late and I'm tired. GL with the map, I'll play it when the beta gets back on in a few weeks if you need it.
|
|
|
|