|
[M] (2) Jungle Terminal
Playable Size: 140x132 Base Count: 14 Servers: EU, NA, KR/TW Mainramp to Mainramp: 43s
(click to enlarge) 90 degree view angle + Show Spoiler + Mapinfo + Show Spoiler +I think the biggest flaw of the map is that the 4th base on 5/11 o'clock is too easy to take. Jungle Terminal is a two player map with two safe expansions but be careful of the backdoor. The Xel'Naga tower at the center provides vision over important pathes of the map. + Show Spoiler + - Inbase natural base (or pocket third) + Show Spoiler +- Rocks from the inbase natural base (or pocket third) towards a possible forth base or backdoor assault. + Show Spoiler +- The Xel'naga tower in the center with LOS-Blockers around it is an important objective. + Show Spoiler + Changelog + Show Spoiler +- Added gold bases. - Changed the water on the map, still pretty dirty tho - I will probably only do aesthetical changes from now on. I think the map is playable balance-wise. - Did a major overhaul. Adding Waterfalls, more rocktype doodads and alot of terrain changes to create a more natural and animated looking map - Removed the reapercliff because it wasn't needed after the lowground 4th base rework anymore and felt too forced. - Reworked the backdoor. - Fixed pathing issues at lowground 4th base by tucking minerals further back and removing the water area. - Tenth version + Show Spoiler +- Ninth version + Show Spoiler +- Eighth version + Show Spoiler +- Seventh version + Show Spoiler +- Sixth version + Show Spoiler +- Fifth version + Show Spoiler +- Fourth version + Show Spoiler +- Third version + Show Spoiler +- Second version + Show Spoiler +- First version + Show Spoiler +
|
Backdoors like these don't work very well. When the defender has three bases, the attacker can quickly switch between main choke and backdoor, where as the defender has to awkwardly funnel their army through their main base. The one way backdoors are not horribly annoying is, when the entrance is very far off for the attacker and preferably the rocks are a little bit farther away from the base, so that the defender has time to react.
Besides this, the map is very good for a first map! Keep it going The corner bases are a little cramped maybe and vertical (just like horizontal) ramps are bad, but the overall spacing seems fine. I would suggest moving the horizontal ramp base more to the middle (closer to the backdoor base) and using diagonal ramps. Then it becomes an even more "contested" base for both players and the corners are not so packed with bases.
On a different note: Having the map border as higher ground than the map can be pretty abusive, especially for earlier bases. Flying units are not visible from the ground next to it and so harasses like drops or liberator are very hard to defend
|
Thank you for your feedback Insidioussc2.
|
First it's a gorgeous looking map, gratz for that !
You should indeed modify the vertical ramps but overall I think this backdoor has some potential. It doesn't seem too abusive to me since P (the race that I think struggles the most with backdoors due to their lack of mobility with a lot of compositions) can just have the mothership core hover at the edge of the main so that it can overcharge the ramp and pylons at the 3rd.
The XNG looks very powerful to me, but I kinda like it ; it's positioned just outside the 3rd ramp towards the enemy base and it should give both players, even at lower levels, huge incentive to fight for its control.
If I can find a suitable practice partner I'll be happy to test the map and tell you how it feels (I play P).
|
Thanks alot for your nice feedback Wire
- I am testing around with the backdoor and hope I can rework it into a healthier one that keeps the charm of this version. - I kinda like the XNG too and I'm curious how the overall feedback for it will be.
I hope you find a suitable practice partner. It would be absolutely awesome to hear your experience on the map!
|
For some reason the aesthetics and geometrics remind me of steppes of war.
So the natural (or 3rd?) with the double entrance is very large, but that's just a first glance, it's probably okay considering the chokes.
The low ground 4ths in front of the main bases are going to have pathing issues because of the minerals and gas placements. Try removing the water behind them and push the minerals closer to the mains so they're tucked away more.
I'm hearing this is your first map. If that's true, it's well above average compared to other "first maps." Your proportions are pretty spot on.
|
Thanks alot for your feedback IronManSC.
Steps of War reference + Show Spoiler +I was surprised at first hearing the steps of war reference but after thinking about it I can kinda see where it comes from. SoW used the same symmetry and it was also kind of one main path between the mainbases and more bases stretched out to the corners. It also had alot of bushes and green stuff.
low ground 4ths, pathing issues + Show Spoiler +Im not experienced with mapmaking and pathing issues. Your feedback is very helpful. I think you are absolutely right this lowground 4th is very exposed and the minerals are awkwardly in the way there. After you pointed it out I can definately see it creating pathing problems too.
I will test around with your suggestions, thanks
|
Don't overthink the siege play regarding the water hugging the main. Realistically, no moderate Terran player will wedge himself between 3 enemy bases where he can easily get surrounded from the natural and 3rd. More so, all 3 of your bases are well out of range from a low ground siege position, so it doesn't benefit him at all. At worst, he will do drop play in that area, with or without the water. At the moment, terrans are favored around the mineral line because of pathing, which means Zerg cant get a clean surround.
|
@IronManSC Good point! I will work on a new version and try to implement your changes. I will post the result. Probably later today or tomorrow.
EDIT:
Here is the result of removing the water and tucking the minerals more away. Is it better like this? <Picture Removed>
|
It looks way better. It's much cleaner, the pathing is no longer an issue, and you can adequately build a base and stage any army there without unnecessary obstructions. Good fix. Whether or not it's too open is not for me to critique though.
|
imo it is just a tiny bit too open now. Will try to narrow it down a bit.
|
Mod edit: No Advertising please
User was warned for this post
|
I'm curious about your opinion on the abandoned city theme I went for. Do you like it or would you like it to be more like a wild jungle without sign of terran civilisation?
Poll: Do you like the abandoned city theme or prefer a full jungle one?(Vote): I like the current abandoned city style! (Vote): I like it to be full jungle!
|
I feel like it's just too easy to expand horizontally because the bases are so defensible and close to each other. I might just ignore my inbase natural as Zerg until I was on 3 bases. Other than that I like it.
|
@SwedenTheKid You have a good point there. The map is a bit small so i thought it's ok to make the bases relatively easy to access.
|
I think both the full jungle or abandoned city style are very cool
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
First of all, nice map!
Something to think about when you're making the next one: this map has one feature I generally dislike - it is clearly divided into two halves, there is about ~0% chance to hold a base on your opponent's one. It shallows the choice for expansions (especially here where the expansion pattern is pretty straightforward). It is bad for lategame because it denies ability to starve your opponent by mining out "his" resources. Making the map with last 2-4 bases a point of contention for both players makes it much more interesting.
|
@Ingvar true its a very straight forward design. I dont think the lategame on this map would be boring tho. Thanks for your feedback!
|
|
|
|