| ATTx Korea (South). June 08 2012 22:31. Posts 12 | Profile # |
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JQNbl.jpg)
Hello ! :D I'm ATTx
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WpjFP.jpg) |
| |
|
| chuky500 France. June 08 2012 22:49. Posts 379 | Profile Blog # |
| Wasn't the neutral supply depot to stop pylon contain or canons ? If you can put canons on top it's even more powerful now. And bunker rushes would be a viable strategy again. |
|
|
| Veloh15 United States. June 08 2012 22:51. Posts 158 | Profile # |
| Really cool idea! Not sure how practical it is unfortunately. |
|
|
| Ragoo Germany. June 08 2012 23:15. Posts 2207 | Profile # |
On June 08 2012 22:49 chuky500 wrote:
Wasn't the neutral supply depot to stop pylon contain or canons ? If you can put canons on top it's even more powerful now. And bunker rushes would be a viable strategy again.
Since it's raised I would assume it's just like a rock, making the ramp smaller early but you can open it up more in case you get contained. Cos then if you would have to go up a 1x ramp it could hurt (forcefields, tanks etc). |
| | Member of TPW mapmaking team/// twitter.com/Ragoo_ /// "goody represents border between explainable reason and supernatural" Cloud |
|
|
 Aunvilgod June 09 2012 00:13. Posts 2031 | Profile # |
Lowground Main? I don´t even...
Well I know I´d get lynched if I did that on a map.
Is the map finished? I can hardly see any doodads. |
| |
|
 Sea_Food Finland. June 09 2012 01:18. Posts 1612 | Profile Blog # |
There are thousands of obvious reasons that make low ground main bad. Like pvp is 100% because of pylons and blink and shit, and in pvt and tvt defender has no advantage.
Can anyone think of any positive reasons for low ground main? If no, then why is it low ground.
Other wise it seems like a good map.
Besides that there is already a map called whiteout
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=260524 |
|
|
| Nora_ Korea (South). June 09 2012 02:39. Posts 2 | Profile # |
| Sea_Food/ we already know this happen. so this map didn't blink from 3rd multi and narrow second multi's entrance is so easy that defend second multi |
| |
|
| a176 Canada. June 09 2012 03:12. Posts 5431 | Profile Blog # |
blinking from third to main is not the problem
blinking from natural into main ... and its taldarim style natural with flat entrance. so you guys just recreated the same problem found in taldarim. but worse now that the main is lowered and the defending player has zero vision, forced to get observer. |
| |
|
| Aunvilgod June 09 2012 03:18. Posts 2031 | Profile # |
On June 09 2012 01:18 Sea_Food wrote:There are thousands of obvious reasons that make low ground main bad. Like pvp is 100% because of pylons and blink and shit, and in pvt and tvt defender has no advantage. Can anyone think of any positive reasons for low ground main? If no, then why is it low ground. Other wise it seems like a good map. Besides that there is already a map called whiteout http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=260524
I think we do far too less experiments with these new map concepts. They are not tested in the current pro-metagame at all. There certainly are ways to avoid the problems but everybody is just too comfortable with their old safe builds. |
| |
|
| FlaShFTW United States. June 09 2012 04:07. Posts 4962 | Profile Blog # |
please do not have a low ground main.
but its still a great map. it seems you are fond of these backdoor areas on some bases. xD |
| | Never Surrender. Never GG. Always Fighting. BW4LYF. Woo Jung Ho Never Forget. |
|
|
| Catatonic United States. June 09 2012 11:48. Posts 690 | Profile # |
If only it were more zerg friendly  so many chokes and ramps |
| | T: DeMuslim SeleCT. P: Naniwa Genius. Z: IdrA Destiny Team: EG |
|
|
| Broodie Canada. June 09 2012 12:04. Posts 752 | Profile Blog # |
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj |
| | Part of team SCA - Want your Games/Tournaments Casted? check out my profile for more info! |
|
|
| monitor United States. June 09 2012 12:44. Posts 2280 | Profile Blog # |
On June 09 2012 12:04 Broodie wrote:
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj
Meh this map is a perfect example of why we need to test things. As far as I know there has been almost no testing of lowground mains... so can we just give it a try? PvP is the only MU that I can think of that might be really bad, but who knows. I can forsee highground vision issues with TvP too but... it might work just fine. |
| | Starcraft 2 Mapmaker for TPW || Author of Korhal Compound |
|
|
| Broodie Canada. June 10 2012 08:10. Posts 752 | Profile Blog # |
On June 09 2012 12:44 monitor wrote:
....PvP is the only MU that I can think of that might be really bad, but who knows. I can forsee highground vision issues with TvP too ...
Since we're quoting for no reason at all lol
weird how you quote me and derail your own comment off the bat?
Sorry to kill your comment but it will be tested, nobody said they wouldn't try the map, I personally love the concept and ATTx might be my new favotire Crux member!
I've played this map a few times and cheese can be spotted fairly easily but early heavy harass builds are so damn strong from protoss, will test a bit more, I love the design.
But again, this map would obliterate a lot of high end maps already out there if there was a 4th level of terrain allowed.
good job ATTx
Keep up the neat new layouts I love them
|
| | Part of team SCA - Want your Games/Tournaments Casted? check out my profile for more info! |
|
|
| a176 Canada. June 10 2012 08:44. Posts 5431 | Profile Blog # |
On June 09 2012 12:44 monitor wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:04 Broodie wrote:
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj
Meh this map is a perfect example of why we need to test things. As far as I know there has been almost no testing of lowground mains... so can we just give it a try? PvP is the only MU that I can think of that might be really bad, but who knows. I can forsee highground vision issues with TvP too but... it might work just fine.
we cant have same level nat-main, why would a lowered main be better ?? |
| |
|
| Yonnua United Kingdom. June 10 2012 13:22. Posts 1040 | Profile Blog # |
On June 10 2012 08:44 a176 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 12:44 monitor wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:04 Broodie wrote:
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj
Meh this map is a perfect example of why we need to test things. As far as I know there has been almost no testing of lowground mains... so can we just give it a try? PvP is the only MU that I can think of that might be really bad, but who knows. I can forsee highground vision issues with TvP too but... it might work just fine.
we cant have same level nat-main, why would a lowered main be better ??
Technically the problems with same level usually arise from an inability to forcefield the ramp (e.g. Tal'darim) but with low-ground mains if you can warp in with pylons it doesn't matter anyway because four gates will just roll you anyway. The difference between equal level and lower level with a forcefieldable ramp is just for some terran or zerg pushes. PvP is horrible for both.
For this map I'd suggest enough of a rim around the main of unpathable terrain such that warp-ins aren't viable, if you really are committed to a low-ground main. |
| | PartinG | NaNiwa | Creator | Mvp | Bomber | Oz | FanTaSy | JangBi |
|
|
| EatThePath United States. June 10 2012 16:08. Posts 2467 | Profile Blog # |
On June 10 2012 13:22 Yonnua wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 08:44 a176 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:44 monitor wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:04 Broodie wrote:
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj
Meh this map is a perfect example of why we need to test things. As far as I know there has been almost no testing of lowground mains... so can we just give it a try? PvP is the only MU that I can think of that might be really bad, but who knows. I can forsee highground vision issues with TvP too but... it might work just fine.
we cant have same level nat-main, why would a lowered main be better ??
Technically the problems with same level usually arise from an inability to forcefield the ramp (e.g. Tal'darim) but with low-ground mains if you can warp in with pylons it doesn't matter anyway because four gates will just roll you anyway. The difference between equal level and lower level with a forcefieldable ramp is just for some terran or zerg pushes. PvP is horrible for both. For this map I'd suggest enough of a rim around the main of unpathable terrain such that warp-ins aren't viable, if you really are committed to a low-ground main.
I would agree that no-build around the top rim of the ramp is the best solution, but this precludes the player from making a wall at the top of the ramp, which would be kind of cool and a natural development for this kind of sunken main (potentially).
It just seems like an untenable design given the balance of the early game. Terran would have to abandon 1rax expo completely on this map vs protoss because of the strength of proxy stalker openings when the stalker gets high ground. I feel like a proper sunken main design just forces players to either play super conservative builds or greedy wall-your-natural builds. Obviously the latter is already standard in some matchups on most maps, but for the other matchups it makes the early game really coinflippy, a term I almost never use. |
| | Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE |
|
|
| Amlitzer United States. June 10 2012 16:08. Posts 468 | Profile # |
On June 09 2012 12:04 Broodie wrote:
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj
It's more like this is why blizzard needs to redo the high ground mechanics in sc2. I really miss being able to have low ground mains in sc2 like you can in bw. |
| | "Not even justice, I want to get truth!" | |
|
|
| Yonnua United Kingdom. June 10 2012 16:38. Posts 1040 | Profile Blog # |
On June 10 2012 16:08 EatThePath wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 13:22 Yonnua wrote:
On June 10 2012 08:44 a176 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:44 monitor wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:04 Broodie wrote:
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj
Meh this map is a perfect example of why we need to test things. As far as I know there has been almost no testing of lowground mains... so can we just give it a try? PvP is the only MU that I can think of that might be really bad, but who knows. I can forsee highground vision issues with TvP too but... it might work just fine.
we cant have same level nat-main, why would a lowered main be better ??
Technically the problems with same level usually arise from an inability to forcefield the ramp (e.g. Tal'darim) but with low-ground mains if you can warp in with pylons it doesn't matter anyway because four gates will just roll you anyway. The difference between equal level and lower level with a forcefieldable ramp is just for some terran or zerg pushes. PvP is horrible for both. For this map I'd suggest enough of a rim around the main of unpathable terrain such that warp-ins aren't viable, if you really are committed to a low-ground main.
I would agree that no-build around the top rim of the ramp is the best solution, but this precludes the player from making a wall at the top of the ramp, which would be kind of cool and a natural development for this kind of sunken main (potentially). It just seems like an untenable design given the balance of the early game. Terran would have to abandon 1rax expo completely on this map vs protoss because of the strength of proxy stalker openings when the stalker gets high ground. I feel like a proper sunken main design just forces players to either play super conservative builds or greedy wall-your-natural builds. Obviously the latter is already standard in some matchups on most maps, but for the other matchups it makes the early game really coinflippy, a term I almost never use.
Ummm.... I said unPATHable terrain, not unBUILDable terrain. Unbuildable terrain does nothing to deal with the problem whereas a ravine or cliff that means there's no pylon reach in to the main does. |
| | PartinG | NaNiwa | Creator | Mvp | Bomber | Oz | FanTaSy | JangBi |
|
|
| EatThePath United States. June 10 2012 16:59. Posts 2467 | Profile Blog # |
On June 10 2012 16:38 Yonnua wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 16:08 EatThePath wrote:
On June 10 2012 13:22 Yonnua wrote:
On June 10 2012 08:44 a176 wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:44 monitor wrote:
On June 09 2012 12:04 Broodie wrote:
This map is a perfect example of why there needs to be four levels of terrain in sc2...
I love the concept though gj
Meh this map is a perfect example of why we need to test things. As far as I know there has been almost no testing of lowground mains... so can we just give it a try? PvP is the only MU that I can think of that might be really bad, but who knows. I can forsee highground vision issues with TvP too but... it might work just fine.
we cant have same level nat-main, why would a lowered main be better ??
Technically the problems with same level usually arise from an inability to forcefield the ramp (e.g. Tal'darim) but with low-ground mains if you can warp in with pylons it doesn't matter anyway because four gates will just roll you anyway. The difference between equal level and lower level with a forcefieldable ramp is just for some terran or zerg pushes. PvP is horrible for both. For this map I'd suggest enough of a rim around the main of unpathable terrain such that warp-ins aren't viable, if you really are committed to a low-ground main.
I would agree that no-build around the top rim of the ramp is the best solution, but this precludes the player from making a wall at the top of the ramp, which would be kind of cool and a natural development for this kind of sunken main (potentially). It just seems like an untenable design given the balance of the early game. Terran would have to abandon 1rax expo completely on this map vs protoss because of the strength of proxy stalker openings when the stalker gets high ground. I feel like a proper sunken main design just forces players to either play super conservative builds or greedy wall-your-natural builds. Obviously the latter is already standard in some matchups on most maps, but for the other matchups it makes the early game really coinflippy, a term I almost never use.
Ummm.... I said unPATHable terrain, not unBUILDable terrain. Unbuildable terrain does nothing to deal with the problem whereas a ravine or cliff that means there's no pylon reach in to the main does.
oh oops, well same effect -- in either case you're preventing pylon power from reaching the low ground. no-build equivalent to unpathable as far as pylons care.
if you're talking about the cliff of the main that isn't near the ramp, the main is high ground compared to that pylon area, as usual. |
| | Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE |
|
|
| 1 2 Next All |
|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/k5qZc)
