|
Thanks for all the positive feedback!
On June 18 2012 07:05 Existor wrote: Sadly blizzard will never use it. Great template and I very like fresh new designs. You must send it to blizzard, just try, but they hate non-standart tilesets and prefer boring standart designs -_-
Hmm afaik they had no problem with the textures of Cloud Kingdom. But what I really doubt is that Blizzard would test this map. It has been hardly tested (not to mention tested with GMs) at all. And you can´t really just throw something out there. All other community-made ladder maps had appeared in the GSL or some other tournament before, as far as I know.
|
I've given a lot of thought to this map because I think it's aesthetics and layout are fascinating, however, what I do feel is:
- How the centre is built, T can basically lock it down versus Zerg with tanks on two key positions, (as well as mech versus bio, though bio can still medivac around it and it's a mirror matchup so less important), the tanks will stop Zerg surely from just running by from the lower part of the cliffs and it also makes the two tight chokes in the centre plateau very hard for Zerg to engage or bypass, together with the rest of the chokes. I see T being able to do a mech slowpush versus Z that is _very_ hard to stop for Z. If a T does this properly, there is no way to counter attack or even get a good concave or arc against the T mech or even tank/marine army.
- The chokey high ground above the natural will make tank pushes and just in general pushes there very powerful, you have a high ground just above the natural, I'm also not sure but it looks like you can blink across it into the main without acquiring vision. 1-1-1 all ins also seem to be very hard to hold there. Just anything tanks.
- The fact that some of the expansios are not spawn points but still look like them (they probably started as them but were modified) basically means that you're working on the idea that you can wall off a small area to have access to a lot of bases which can't really be threatened unless by air.
tl;dr: good Terran map most likely.
|
I fully agree with your first two points. This is just my take on balance: If you allow a mech player to push the creep all the way down there you already screwed up before. Overall I would say it is about as T favoured as Antiga over Z and a bit more favoured over P. But I might use LOS blocker on the straight cliffs at the 6 and 12 o´clock position to allow for easier runbys.
I have no idea what you´re talking about in your third point...
|
Looks awesome! But i fear the chokes it will create for zerg players. There is way to little breathing room. With force fields or tanks you can to effectively close down nat/third and with the thing in the middle just outside third makes it just extremely hard for zergs.
|
I sort of had the same idea in mind when I looked at the map (but it is a first impression and might not actually play out this way /disclaimer) - that Z could be contained to 2 bases by T/P if the T/P just sat at the top of the ramp near the 3rd. If I were zerg I would go mutas every game on this map (or maybe nydus cheese), b/c of that + the airspace.
Aesthetics are obviously boss + I like the middle other than the bases there.
|
On September 01 2012 09:47 Fatam wrote: I sort of had the same idea in mind when I looked at the map (but it is a first impression and might not actually play out this way /disclaimer) - that Z could be contained to 2 bases by T/P if the T/P just sat at the top of the ramp near the 3rd. If I were zerg I would go mutas every game on this map (or maybe nydus cheese), b/c of that + the airspace.
Aesthetics are obviously boss + I like the middle other than the bases there.
I think Zergs nowadays should have creep up there by the time siege hits. Protoss could try some 2 base contain, but if you then go muta I don´t think it would be very successful. IF such a contain by Protoss occurs he will eventually have to back out and then be at a disadvantage because of the small 3rd.
However, I think every map needs to be tested by top top players before you can make definite statements. And I can´t do that.
|
Speaking as a zerg player I really don't think the chokes around the third will be a problem. Certainly it's better than Antiga in terms of defending sentry heavy pushes, and early siege mode pushes are pretty much completely dead in the modern metagame. However I don't understand why the third is 6 min 1 gas. I would call this a really strong map if it wasn't for that detail.
|
Beautiful Map
|
|
On September 03 2012 02:50 Insomni7 wrote: Speaking as a zerg player I really don't think the chokes around the third will be a problem. Certainly it's better than Antiga in terms of defending sentry heavy pushes, and early siege mode pushes are pretty much completely dead in the modern metagame. However I don't understand why the third is 6 min 1 gas. I would call this a really strong map if it wasn't for that detail.
Because protoss and terran don´t need to split their forces to defend the 3rd. If you position your army on the center highground leading to the third you can cover the small rump as well as the big ramp with forcefields. Even more important, tanks cover every possible angle of attack and are hard to flank as a zerg.
|
Good map but to many chokes bro.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
I really love the look of this map, I'm not entirely sure you need the fourths where they are as on cross position only it would mean army movement would secure your fourth and another base cluster, but looks awesome. Going to have to give it a try. ^^
|
On June 18 2012 03:17 Aunvilgod wrote: Because of imbalance the horizontal spawns are disabled. Got my hopes up that this was a 4 player map. As other have noted, I also don't think the centre map 6m1hyg bases are necessary; you still have 14 bases on the map with them removed, making for 7 bases per player. To put this in perspective, here are the base counts per player for current tournament-quality maps:
Daybreak = 6 Cloud Kingdom = 6 Ohana = 5
Blizzard tournament maps:
Antiga Shipyard = 7 (LOL good luck acquiring them all though!) Entombed Valley = 8 (Again, good luck acquiring them all!)
And those are generally the maps that every tournament seems to have. I think you'll be fine with 7 per player. Most games don't go beyond 4-5 bases in the first place.
|
On October 01 2012 03:02 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 03:17 Aunvilgod wrote: Because of imbalance the horizontal spawns are disabled. Got my hopes up that this was a 4 player map. As other have noted, I also don't think the centre map 6m1hyg bases are necessary; you still have 14 bases on the map with them removed, making for 7 bases per player. To put this in perspective, here are the base counts per player for current tournament-quality maps: Daybreak = 6 Cloud Kingdom = 6 Ohana = 5 Blizzard tournament maps: Antiga Shipyard = 7 (LOL good luck acquiring them all though!) Entombed Valley = 8 (Again, good luck acquiring them all!) And those are generally the maps that every tournament seems to have. I think you'll be fine with 7 per player. Most games don't go beyond 4-5 bases in the first place.
Honestly, I don´t know if they are a good idea or not, but as you pointed out they won´t matter in 99% of the games anyway.
|
On October 01 2012 03:10 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 03:02 iamcaustic wrote:On June 18 2012 03:17 Aunvilgod wrote: Because of imbalance the horizontal spawns are disabled. Got my hopes up that this was a 4 player map. As other have noted, I also don't think the centre map 6m1hyg bases are necessary; you still have 14 bases on the map with them removed, making for 7 bases per player. To put this in perspective, here are the base counts per player for current tournament-quality maps: Daybreak = 6 Cloud Kingdom = 6 Ohana = 5 Blizzard tournament maps: Antiga Shipyard = 7 (LOL good luck acquiring them all though!) Entombed Valley = 8 (Again, good luck acquiring them all!) And those are generally the maps that every tournament seems to have. I think you'll be fine with 7 per player. Most games don't go beyond 4-5 bases in the first place. Honestly, I don´t know if they are a good idea or not, but as you pointed out they won´t matter in 99% of the games anyway. Up to you in the end, of course, but IMO it feels like they've been added just 'cause, rather than for any real benefit to the map.
|
Hey guys, I didn't save my maps elsewhere and I changed my hard drive years ago, anybody got this map downloaded by any chance? Or have any other idea how to get it? lol
|
Ah sorry man, can't help you. Can't you find it on WoL? (Can people even still connect on a WoL version of the game?)
But it's hilarious that I thought you just posted this thread a few days ago and reading the posts without looking at any of the dates I was thinking "how come so many people are posting in that thread and noone has pointed out yet that it really looks like a WoL map and that 4p aren't in fashion anymore"
|
China6282 Posts
If you didn't delete the map off Bnet in the editor it should be available for download there no?
|
I thought WoL doesn't exist any more?
|
WoL ladder doesn't exist anymore.
|
|
|
|