|
|
|
I really like the concept, specially the nat/3rd But what I really dislike, is the title set and the weird doodad selection.
|
Confused how the nat works. Can't you just siege the mineral line? Vision doesn't seem that hard to get. Seems like it would make expanding pretty much impossible.
|
crazy rotational imbalance here, but i love the layout of the nat. maybe turn this into a 2p map?
|
On October 13 2015 21:42 -NegativeZero- wrote: crazy rotational imbalance here, but i love the layout of the nat. maybe turn this into a 2p map?
Can you explain the imbalance here? I'm seeing relatively similar positions no matter the spawn locations.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I like the map, not concerned about rotational imbalances. They seem to be pretty mild for a 4p map.
The natural does concern me though. It seems very easy to attack (e.g. stalkers/marines) and very difficult to defend. Moreover, securing a third seems very difficult and losing your third should cost you the game because of the inability to defend your natural.
|
On October 14 2015 11:06 Plexa wrote: I like the map, not concerned about rotational imbalances. They seem to be pretty mild for a 4p map.
The natural does concern me though. It seems very easy to attack (e.g. stalkers/marines) and very difficult to defend. Moreover, securing a third seems very difficult and losing your third should cost you the game because of the inability to defend your natural.
Lol although, I really like the concept/map (except 4 what I mentioned b4) I think this is as positionally imbalanced as it gets.
Picture this: PvZ (just as an example, ic similar issue in many other matchups, including TvP TvZ, even TvT ZvZ…) Ok so Ptoss is in top left, vs Z in bottom left. Zerg in that position is at a tremendous disadvantage, so vulnerable against so many types of 2 base all in, even 1 base all in, even if P does not want to cheese, he has so many harass opportunities. Look at the pathing, P in my example has to do so little 2 profit so much, while z will have 2 go considerably off his way to create any type of abuse on P´s nat.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Yeah it's not nearly as bad as you make out. + Show Spoiler + Both Green and Red have more or less equal tools to attack the natural. Sure, once the rocks fall down this is no longer the case but that's something that can be adjusted in testing (i.e. removing the ramp, adding more rocks or whatever else is necessary to amend that).
|
it's pretty much balanced by ground, but i was thinking more in terms of harassment, mostly due to the slightly unconventional rotation of the mains. the clockwise player's main is much more exposed to air/drops, while the counterclockwise player's natural mineral line is more vulnerable to harassment from the back.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On October 14 2015 18:38 -NegativeZero- wrote: it's pretty much balanced by ground, but i was thinking more in terms of harassment, mostly due to the slightly unconventional rotation of the mains. the clockwise player's main is much more exposed to air/drops, while the counterclockwise player's natural mineral line is more vulnerable to harassment from the back. Well with any rotational 4p map you're always going to have these issues, it seems within an acceptable range here.
|
On October 14 2015 18:03 Plexa wrote:Yeah it's not nearly as bad as you make out. + Show Spoiler +Both Green and Red have more or less equal tools to attack the natural. Sure, once the rocks fall down this is no longer the case but that's something that can be adjusted in testing (i.e. removing the ramp, adding more rocks or whatever else is necessary to amend that).
I think what you're saying is correct if the ramp w/ rocks isn't there. But as the map is, the rocks will be broken and the CCW has a serious disadvantage imo (between the attack/defense distance, and lack of 'backdoor' for the defender to move between nat and 3rd when the nat has a mineral or two mined out). That said, I think the difficulty of expanding to the nat overshadows any positional imbalance haha.
|
|
|
|