|
Precarious v0.2
Uploaded to [NA] [EU]
By: Rife
Stats: Spawns: 2 Playable Map Bounds: 136 x 136
Distances Worker Time: Natural to Natural: 46 seconds (Town hall to town hall).
Measurement Tool: Natural to Natural: 147 (Town hall to town hall).
10 Normal Bases 2 Gold Bases 2 XNT
Additional Notes: + Show Spoiler +There are line of sight blockers in the middle of the map that don't show up on the overview. This makes the watchtowers crucial in gaining advantages in fights in the middle.
I would love to hear your comments and feedback!
|
I think the Gold is way to easy to defend for it to be a gold base. I would never take the regular one as my third. Also i think that the middle is to choked. Other than that i think its a solid map though
|
There are some really nice ideas here, and this map is quite close to being very solid. The only thing off are some proportional issues. For example, the nat is quite small and akward with two entrances when it doesn't need to be. I'll try and draw out a more elaborate explanation when I get home. But yeah, solid ideas here.
|
On August 09 2013 00:44 DBS wrote: I think the Gold is way to easy to defend for it to be a gold base. I would never take the regular one as my third. Also i think that the middle is to choked. Other than that i think its a solid map though
The gold is very far for a 3rd base and it requires you to cover an entirely different area of the map than the rest of the bases. I think this is pretty much ideal. If it were less choked it might be taken by a zerg as a third, but as is no race could defend it against a 2 base all-in (albeit one that hits just a little bit earlier than 2base all-ins designed against players who have taken a standard yield third).
|
This map reminds me of Ravage (by Ironman). It looks very similar...
|
|
It's definitely more similar to Ravage.
|
I think it would make more sense if the collapsible rock tower @ the 3rd was at the ramp, not the lowground passage.
also as TT said the nat could be slightly less cramped as you head towards the backdoor.
Seems pretty promising overall
|
On August 09 2013 00:45 Timetwister22 wrote: There are some really nice ideas here, and this map is quite close to being very solid. The only thing off are some proportional issues. For example, the nat is quite small and akward with two entrances when it doesn't need to be. I'll try and draw out a more elaborate explanation when I get home. But yeah, solid ideas here.
If you could draw up what you were talking about I would appreciate it. My goal was to make a natural that was as open as possible while still allowing for a forge fast expand. What did you have in mind? What are some of the other proportional issues?
|
ravage is the next xelnaga caverns/daybreak I guess?
@rife: you can't FFE a natural with 2 entrances like that because you can't keep out early pool lings. FFE is possible when you can wall in one location across 12 or less squares covered by 1 cannon. However, you might gate expand here just fine. Also consider that the backdoor is pretty annoying for zerg when there are hellions. They would have to overcompensate for the threat of mass hellions which might not even be real.
Basically in all matchups unless scouting macro play from opponent you want your rocks closed. Which means then you have to open them to have a reasonable 3rd. It just seems like an awkward thing much of the time. However if you slightly changed the angle and/or reduced the span of the "real" entrance to the nat, it might work fine in the way you intend.
Actually looking at the overview again the 3rd is fine (a little like a Planet S 3rd) if you just remove that side ramp/if the rocks are down. So I recommend playing with the ramp placement angle/size of entrances.
|
I made a picture: + Show Spoiler +
So yeah, minor changes. Kinda hard to draw outside of the editor, but basically rearranging the natural so that there is more room above that collapse rock ramp. Also, to make your concept with the natural stronger, I added a path into the natural with rocks where deadspace was. This also opens up things like blink and elevator play, which also fits the map feel.
The other "major" change I added was this choke here: + Show Spoiler + Since the bases are spread out, unlike maps like Daybreak, I think it's important to have a defensive area for a 4 base defense. If the bases are close, make 4 bases open as hell. This is also the reasoning to the tower change. Negative effects of the tower change is that the tower goes from an offensive tower, to a defensive one. If you're not okay with that, you can leave it as is. By 4 bases, most players should have some form of scouting so the new position isn't really needed, but helps will less mobile compositions like tanks.
I do feel kinda funky with a low ground third and the ramp that close to the base, but I think it should be okay since the opponent kinda has to go the long way to go down that ramp, and once they're there they can't really bounce right into the natural like on Howling Peaks.
Other things I did include bringing the low ground collapse rocks by the third closer to the base, brought the third that leads down to the ramp closer to the base and narrowed it, and switch the collapse rocks at the natural to fall on the other side of the ramp. In general, I slightly rearranged some chokes and distances of certain defensive positions, to make their corresponding bases easier to protect. Where these defensive changes don't exactly go toward your aggressive style and concept, I feel it is important to allow for some early game defense. This is because, quite frankly, mid game aggression with drops and multi pronged attacks is way more fun and exciting to play and watch than say, a baneling or immortal bust. Thus, increasing the success rate at which players can take a third rather than strongly encouraging 2 base aggression is a nice touch. Though, not too drastic to make 3 basing the go to strat. 2 base aggression will still be strong here, but now with proper scouting, should be able to be held while going into a third during or soon after holding. Of course, this may need tweaking as you play or see games on it. Achieving such a balance is hard to do with out playing on the map. Yet, that should be your ultimate goal.
Last thing I did was open the middle up. The chokey-ness seemed silly considering you had to go through chokes to get to the middle area.
Overall, solid ideas. Certainly some of your best stuff, as it was only minor stuff that is holding this map from being a solid and nice map. Though, that aesthetics are kinda bland...but can't really complain much. Nice job ^^
|
On August 10 2013 03:56 EatThePath wrote: ravage is the next xelnaga caverns/daybreak I guess?
@rife: you can't FFE a natural with 2 entrances like that because you can't keep out early pool lings. FFE is possible when you can wall in one location across 12 or less squares covered by 1 cannon. However, you might gate expand here just fine. Also consider that the backdoor is pretty annoying for zerg when there are hellions. They would have to overcompensate for the threat of mass hellions which might not even be real. This is hardly true, soft wall FFE's have been readily practised and are quite viable.
|
On August 10 2013 09:11 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2013 03:56 EatThePath wrote: ravage is the next xelnaga caverns/daybreak I guess?
@rife: you can't FFE a natural with 2 entrances like that because you can't keep out early pool lings. FFE is possible when you can wall in one location across 12 or less squares covered by 1 cannon. However, you might gate expand here just fine. Also consider that the backdoor is pretty annoying for zerg when there are hellions. They would have to overcompensate for the threat of mass hellions which might not even be real. This is hardly true, soft wall FFE's have been readily practised and are quite viable. What do you mean?
|
2 entrance naturals are fine as long as one can be closed later on. Gateway expands are very viable now, and an early mothership core can knock down rocks before a roach ling pressure/all in hits. Early pools are no problem with gateway expands.
|
On August 10 2013 09:14 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2013 09:11 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 10 2013 03:56 EatThePath wrote: ravage is the next xelnaga caverns/daybreak I guess?
@rife: you can't FFE a natural with 2 entrances like that because you can't keep out early pool lings. FFE is possible when you can wall in one location across 12 or less squares covered by 1 cannon. However, you might gate expand here just fine. Also consider that the backdoor is pretty annoying for zerg when there are hellions. They would have to overcompensate for the threat of mass hellions which might not even be real. This is hardly true, soft wall FFE's have been readily practised and are quite viable. What do you mean? I mean that nexus walloff FFE's have been practised and proven capable of holding aggression.
|
On August 10 2013 12:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2013 09:14 EatThePath wrote:On August 10 2013 09:11 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 10 2013 03:56 EatThePath wrote: ravage is the next xelnaga caverns/daybreak I guess?
@rife: you can't FFE a natural with 2 entrances like that because you can't keep out early pool lings. FFE is possible when you can wall in one location across 12 or less squares covered by 1 cannon. However, you might gate expand here just fine. Also consider that the backdoor is pretty annoying for zerg when there are hellions. They would have to overcompensate for the threat of mass hellions which might not even be real. This is hardly true, soft wall FFE's have been readily practised and are quite viable. What do you mean? I mean that nexus walloff FFE's have been practised and proven capable of holding aggression.
Show me such proof good sir, I'd love to see it. I've been told by several high masters NA and EU players that such a wall is not really viable pvz, nor has it really been that viable. It also just seems like a bad map feature anyways. Even if it is viable, it still encourages 2 base all ins. Not something I particular like to see on a map.
|
On August 10 2013 12:51 Timetwister22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2013 12:05 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 10 2013 09:14 EatThePath wrote:On August 10 2013 09:11 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 10 2013 03:56 EatThePath wrote: ravage is the next xelnaga caverns/daybreak I guess?
@rife: you can't FFE a natural with 2 entrances like that because you can't keep out early pool lings. FFE is possible when you can wall in one location across 12 or less squares covered by 1 cannon. However, you might gate expand here just fine. Also consider that the backdoor is pretty annoying for zerg when there are hellions. They would have to overcompensate for the threat of mass hellions which might not even be real. This is hardly true, soft wall FFE's have been readily practised and are quite viable. What do you mean? I mean that nexus walloff FFE's have been practised and proven capable of holding aggression. Show me such proof good sir, I'd love to see it. I've been told by several high masters NA and EU players that such a wall is not really viable pvz, nor has it really been that viable. It also just seems like a bad map feature anyways. Even if it is viable, it still encourages 2 base all ins. Not something I particular like to see on a map. Stephano vs MC, first blizzard cup, the one that MMA won on Dual Site.
Apart from that, hard walls encourage 2base all ins from Protoss, so meh, it'll never be right.
|
Made some proportion changes per TimeTwister's advice. I decided against the watchtower changes and although I like his idea of the side entrance to the natural I did not see how I could reasonably fit that in without major changes to the map.
|
|
|
|