| Chargelot August 02 2012 13:12. Posts 2274 | Profile Blog # |
On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever.
The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map.
Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large. |
| | if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; } |
|
|
| monitor United States. August 02 2012 13:26. Posts 2292 | Profile Blog # |
On August 02 2012 13:12 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever.
The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map.
Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large.
Actually you can easily scout any probe coming in by the nexus because that area is very small. It won't be hard to spot a probe coming in and stop it if you're playing well and keeping your eyes open. I'd be glad to test on NA if you guys are so inclined, add me "monitor", 450. |
| | Starcraft 2 Mapmaker for TPW || Author of Korhal Compound |
|
|
| Chargelot August 02 2012 15:08. Posts 2274 | Profile Blog # |
On August 02 2012 13:26 monitor wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 13:12 Chargelot wrote:
On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever.
The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map.
Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large.
Actually you can easily scout any probe coming in by the nexus because that area is very small. It won't be hard to spot a probe coming in and stop it if you're playing well and keeping your eyes open. I'd be glad to test on NA if you guys are so inclined, add me "monitor", 450.
 no NA account else I would. But the same argument could be made for any main with a standard ramp. The entrance is small, you should be able to see it coming. So why do we have standardized main sizes?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. And I think it's an interesting concept. But it needs to be put up against these types of questions.Last edit: 2012-08-02 15:42:18 |
| | if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; } |
|
|
 WniO United States. August 02 2012 15:23. Posts 2704 | Profile Blog # |
| Too many rocks, just remove them and add in black tar lakes- Like the BW mar-sara tile set, (around the outside of map.) |
|
|
| monitor United States. August 04 2012 00:12. Posts 2292 | Profile Blog # |
On August 02 2012 15:08 Chargelot wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 13:26 monitor wrote:
On August 02 2012 13:12 Chargelot wrote:
On July 31 2012 23:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
On July 31 2012 08:38 Diamond wrote:
On July 31 2012 08:20 lost_artz wrote:
Combination of low ground main + high ground nat would lend itself heavily to cheesy play IMO.
Something Dragonadern forgot to point out in regards to 4 Gates is if they manage to get a pylon up in your 'natural'. Then they have high ground on top of a 4 Gate. You also have the option for terran to do 2 Rax pressure and float them onto the high ground to harass from your own nat. Siege tank contains are the obvious transition if you manage a contain with that.
Making the nats the lowest points on the map would be better but even that's not a good option because then you give people the option of warping units from the high ground into your natural later on in the game.
Just doesn't seem well thought to me.
Changing the nats with the mains would be possible but IDK how well it would work out.
You should not let pylons get up in your base, this applies to every map ever.
The area you have to check for pylons on this map if you're on a one base situation is quite big though. If someone comes with a really fast 10gate 4gate it's going to take you 3 probes to be pulled from mining just to check for it. And if you find it on the other side of your natural, I wonder what you're going to do, because you can't actually send your army there to kill it or your ramp is exposed. Of course it's all theorycrafting, but fast 4gate rushes seem extremely hard to hold on this map.
Mains >50-75% larger than average will do that to you. It was an.. interesting.. choice to make them so large.
Actually you can easily scout any probe coming in by the nexus because that area is very small. It won't be hard to spot a probe coming in and stop it if you're playing well and keeping your eyes open. I'd be glad to test on NA if you guys are so inclined, add me "monitor", 450.
no NA account else I would. But the same argument could be made for any main with a standard ramp. The entrance is small, you should be able to see it coming. So why do we have standardized main sizes? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. And I think it's an interesting concept. But it needs to be put up against these types of questions.
What I'm saying is that I don't think it is the same as other maps. On a map like Daybreak or Shakuras, you should never really be walling off in PvP. So the ramp is out of vision until you get your second pylon up at 16 or 17. A probe coming in has to be scouted with either a forward gateway placement, your own probe scout, or luck. Colosseum a probe can be scouted when it walks in afaik.
[edit] Also I do agree that we should be questioning these things, I'm just responding because we did think about it ^^Last edit: 2012-08-04 00:13:16 |
| | Starcraft 2 Mapmaker for TPW || Author of Korhal Compound |
|
|
| Superouman France. August 04 2012 01:02. Posts 1500 | Profile Blog # |
On August 02 2012 15:23 WniO wrote:
Too many rocks, just remove them and add in black tar lakes- Like the BW mar-sara tile set, (around the outside of map.)
Ah good idea, i didn't think about it. thx
but water still takes a shitload of fps rate, not sure if it's better than all the rock doodadsLast edit: 2012-08-04 01:02:37 |
| | Check out for the Next-Gen RTS game with battles on planetary scales: Planetary Annihilation! http://www.planetaryannihilation.com/ |
|
|
| Superouman France. September 18 2012 22:03. Posts 1500 | Profile Blog # |
Update:
- Enlarged natural ramp
- Removed some highground from the third expand near the main choke
- Enlarged 3rd ramp to 4th expand
- Added tower in the middle
- Added some tar |
| | Check out for the Next-Gen RTS game with battles on planetary scales: Planetary Annihilation! http://www.planetaryannihilation.com/ |
|
|
| aiuradun Denmark. September 19 2012 00:02. Posts 112 | Profile # |
| I absolutely love 3 player 1 on 1 maps, and would love to see alot more of these |
| |
|
| NewSunshine United States. September 19 2012 01:22. Posts 1048 | Profile # |
On September 18 2012 22:03 Superouman wrote:
Update:
-- Added some tar
WOAH, I dunno if I can handle that. |
| | [ESV mapmaking team member] [Former DF map team founder] [@ESVNewSunshine] |
|
|
| Inside.Out Canada. September 19 2012 03:16. Posts 553 | Profile Blog # |
NO. why do mapmakers keep trying this. NONONONONONO.
mains on the same level as the ground outside DOES NOT WORK. pvp is completely fucked, and it doesnt help zvz at all. secondly the high ground natural is a cannon haven, you know how easy it is to get 3 pylons up at teh bottom of a ramp? well it doesnt hurt when youre doing it from the top of a ramp. i get that its an anniversary map, but atm its completely unplayable as an SC2 map. |
|
|
| Qikz United Kingdom. September 19 2012 03:52. Posts 6962 | Profile # |
On September 19 2012 03:16 EcstatiC wrote:
NO. why do mapmakers keep trying this. NONONONONONO.
mains on the same level as the ground outside DOES NOT WORK. pvp is completely fucked, and it doesnt help zvz at all. secondly the high ground natural is a cannon haven, you know how easy it is to get 3 pylons up at teh bottom of a ramp? well it doesnt hurt when youre doing it from the top of a ramp. i get that its an anniversary map, but atm its completely unplayable as an SC2 map.
No it isn't.
If you place a pylon outside of the main choke it can be sniped from the highground correct?
It's not broken for PvP at all, stop complaining for no reason. |
|
|
| NewSunshine United States. September 19 2012 04:02. Posts 1048 | Profile # |
On September 19 2012 03:16 EcstatiC wrote:
NO. why do mapmakers keep trying this. NONONONONONO.
mains on the same level as the ground outside DOES NOT WORK. pvp is completely fucked, and it doesnt help zvz at all. secondly the high ground natural is a cannon haven, you know how easy it is to get 3 pylons up at teh bottom of a ramp? well it doesnt hurt when youre doing it from the top of a ramp. i get that its an anniversary map, but atm its completely unplayable as an SC2 map.
The choke at the entrance works pretty much the same as a ramp - it's blocked with a forcefield, and having stuff on the highground allows you to defend - you just need to scout for cheese. Nothing all that different, really. |
| | [ESV mapmaking team member] [Former DF map team founder] [@ESVNewSunshine] |
|
|
| Fatam September 19 2012 07:24. Posts 976 | Profile # |
| I think it works ok. Only thing is, for a map using only 2 of the 3 height levels, you might as well utilize the 3rd level by raising the main and naturals + putting a ramp at the main instead of LOS blockers in order to avoid this controversy altogether. Last edit: 2012-09-19 07:25:02 |
| | Mapmaker for Galaxy | galaxyesports.com | Search for "galaxy" in-game on any region to find all the Galaxy maps |
|
|
| Qikz United Kingdom. September 19 2012 07:44. Posts 6962 | Profile # |
On September 19 2012 07:24 Fatam wrote:
I think it works ok. Only thing is, for a map using only 2 of the 3 height levels, you might as well utilize the 3rd level by raising the main and naturals + putting a ramp at the main instead of LOS blockers in order to avoid this controversy altogether.
That then removes the entire point of what ESV are trying to do.
ESV want to make maps that push the boundries of mapmaking in SC2. We don't know if this works or not as no other map has ever really tried it (not counting Tal'darim as it's very different here). If nobody tries stuff like this we'll never know if it works and all maps will slowly become the same. I made a thread about this problem in General a week or so ago. |
|
|
| EatThePath United States. September 19 2012 09:41. Posts 2559 | Profile Blog # |
On September 19 2012 07:44 Qikz wrote:
Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:24 Fatam wrote:
I think it works ok. Only thing is, for a map using only 2 of the 3 height levels, you might as well utilize the 3rd level by raising the main and naturals + putting a ramp at the main instead of LOS blockers in order to avoid this controversy altogether.
That then removes the entire point of what ESV are trying to do. ESV want to make maps that push the boundries of mapmaking in SC2. We don't know if this works or not as no other map has ever really tried it (not counting Tal'darim as it's very different here). If nobody tries stuff like this we'll never know if it works and all maps will slowly become the same. I made a thread about this problem in General a week or so ago.
Fatam is way past that. 
He's saying that it doesn't add anything when you could just have a level 1 main and a level 2 natural, which preserves the "upper natural" configuration and does away with bending over backwards to have a viable unorthodox main choke. However, the flat choke is perfectly fine here and doesn't require anything special since the natural provides high ground anyway. (Btw this feature was showcased several maps long before now.) It's true that it doesn't really add anything (although it is a little different and has novelty value) but it also doesn't hurt anything so why "fix" it?
I played several PvPs on this map (before the update) and it was totally fine. We actually discovered that the narrow ramp to the natural might be problematic because you can easily abuse FF for attacks with proxy pylons and vision, or warp prism. |
| | Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE |
|
|
| Fatam September 19 2012 10:12. Posts 976 | Profile # |
Thanks Path, yeah that is what I was trying to say (perhaps I'm not the most eloquent or understandable person here :-P I'll try to be more clear in the future). It would be the exact same effect with a L3 nat, L2 main, and rest of the map L1. There would literally be no difference in the map at all, other than a super slight aesthetic difference.
But I'm not the enemy here - I agree that it works fine the way it is :-) + Show Spoiler +(I just think if you can avoid controversy without fundamentally changing how your map works, there's no reason not to do it. i.e. you should only include a "different' feature in a map if it actually affects how the game will be played, not -just- because it is different) |
| | Mapmaker for Galaxy | galaxyesports.com | Search for "galaxy" in-game on any region to find all the Galaxy maps |
|
|
| EatThePath United States. September 19 2012 10:25. Posts 2559 | Profile Blog # |
Hehe sure. ^^
In this case the map is a remake which I think has some weight in the decision, otherwise it's a case of why instead why not. |
| | Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 All |
|
|
|
Store
WCS
