You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
|On a look your map looks great. But everything is really tight. As much as i don't want you to do, you have to remove the forests in front of each player. They are making the choke really tight and this will effect on your armys passing trough there. The center should be completly remade, imo. Not only that it's taken too much space which is making the map even more tight and it's also fucking the cross path finding, makes distances longer, pos imbalance, and staff like this. I also think that you have some tank drop holes near mains and nats. Have you test this? If not you should...|
Whit those changes your map should be really nice.
|Well, as for the chokes and center, it needs to be actually seen in-game.|
Tank holes were tested. Unless I screwed up somewhere, there shouldn't be any room for abuse neither in mains nor in nats. But thx for your comment. I would like to see some actual footage before changing this though.
|Sorry about my english but what "actual footage" means? You need replays? Test gaming? Try a cross TvP game and you will see...|
|Yep, I meant replays. This is a beta version and I will no doubt make changes, but I just need to know how much. Thx for feedback.|
The forests are not 100% dense and that was the idea - to make a choke that is, on one hand, a choke for large ranged units, on the other hand, a wide open space with cover for small melee. Again, I just need to see how it works exactly. My PvT skills are not that sufficient to test this for sure.
EDIT: Special thx to the guy who gave it a 1.
modified by NyRe
|Well if StarCraft units move like in WarCraft 3, then your idea would be nice, but here they most of the units are really stupid, espacially when they are more then 8 in a group :/ .|
About the TvP replays, i also can't help you couse i am a zerg player.
And about the rating... Get used to it, this is really often here. There is always haters out there, including me, hehe >:P .
|Hi there! (and every bwmnetter - its been a long time - panschk, is FP active? I'd love to game you guys again)|
Just wanted to say that it's grat to see a new serious and enthusiastic map maker. I saw your post at tl.net and I appreciate that you want to take time to make this map the best it can be instead of just moving on to the next project. I realize that you can't go on before someone else help test this out, and I promise you that I will try to have one of my P friends play a pvt against me on the map as soon as I see him around, it might be a few days. Do not expect to see experts in action but we will give it what we got.
|i for my part, i would keep those stylish tree-chokes and tear down the center hill completely|
positional balancing is kinda not there :/
especially the top expand next to the compound oO
modified by flothefreak
|Holy shit I just realized that colors are messed up. Don't know how that evaded my sight, SCMDraft reset them for some weird reasons during version changes and I probably misclicked when setting them up again.|
Bug 1: fix colors. Will be there in beta2.
Bug 2: main at 10 tankable.
Flo: what's wrong with that expo? Ground distance from nat chokes should be the same as bottom. If you're talking about cliff gayness, there's some ice at the bottom expo to gay it too. By the point it is taken all races should have their respectable tank gayness counters online.
If I didn't get you, please specify what's wrong. As I've said its my first map, so I'm not that pro and may be unable to spot some stuff on sight.
Edit: 10 main is tankable after all. Added to bugs.
modified by NyRe
modified by NyRe
mayb you could place the trees very close together with scmdraft so that units cant pass through the mini-forests :)
i also think that this map is really tight... mayb you can remove the middle cliff or add a lot of chokes on it (but that will be hard to do)
btw watch your gas placement in your mains - place them so that in each main the same amount of drones are needed for 100% efficiency gas havesting
|Flo, the trees are cool - yes, but imagine how your protoss goon army will pass :)|
|Okay, the map has received a hotfix.|
Beta v 2 changes:
1) Removed walkable terrain on low ground near 10 main to prevent tank gayness.
2) Map should now display proper player colors.
3) Changed obs version - should work now.
|as of now the map is virtually unplayable unless you're t =/ There is almost no flank room, middle is too tight. For being your first map here at bwm, it is great though.|
Gas issue; read articles for clarification. Top and left gas mines the fastest by far; either have the geysers all top or left, or have them all not top or left essentially.
Map is protected so I can't test some things in staredit, please upload a non-protected version. The need to 3hatch is pretty gay, especially since those trees are not a real choke against the units which are a threat to zerg early on. The ability to make a building to mine gas from behind the minerals doesn't look fair, and also I'm sure the room isn't equal there. Also it's pretty gay for p or t to have to do that, and really doesn't effect zerg at all, it's just annoying in general.
The open areas of the map are not equal with eachother; for example there is much more room above the shit in the middle than below it. I'm sure the distances are unfair from main to nat, expo to expo.
The map looks pretty bright, it will be hard to see =/ The terrain decoration is not bad, but it's nothing remarkable. Also I sense a large lack of doodads.
It's not fun having much of the map tankable from that cliff. I bet in virtually every match up terran will lift a factory up there =/
The N expo has a cliff but the S one does not, why is this? The S one has more room too.
There are other things I'd like to test on my own, but you've made that very dificult by protecting the map. Please upload an unprotected one, or do all the distance calculations, size calculations, and various other checks on your own.
The map is not bad, for being your first it is very good; my first maps were much worse than this. The map needs positional balance consideration, and that cliff in the middle brings up racial balance as well. I hope to see more maps from you, if this is your worst I can't wait to see your best :)
|Allrite, I've uploaded some replays for this one. The first four are for the first version and that didn't even see the daylight because of a really tight nat choke. The other ones are from beta1 (so please forgive the weird coloring). I'm still making up my mind about future changes (gas/minerals will be tested and fixed if needed in the next version) so I would love to see a rep from someone else.|
|I would be happy to play your map, but first you have to update it. I can asure you that from the experience that i have your map really needs un update (check my comment whit my suggestions) after that i will play it. Just look at the replay section they are 9 pages of my replays (40 replays each page)! So yes i will test it after the update :) .|
|Well, your updates are inacceptible for sure. Remove tree chokes and center? Why the hell do I need to make an Ice version of LT? (especially considering one exists already) While the passages might be just too tight in some places (and I'm sure working on it, but that's harder than it seems as it's all connected with main sizes etc), you and Nightmarjoo seem to evaluate them as impassable. Seems funny as Rush Hour III which is naturally a giant three-way choke is one of the most popular, balanced and interesting maps up to date.|
## Gas issue; read articles for clarification. Top and left gas mines the fastest by far; either have the geysers all top or left, or have them all not top or left essentially. ##
Not really. I've just tested gas mining and it is pretty equal for all mains other than 3, but that one has gas at bottom and is the FASTEST of all four.
## I'm sure the distances are unfair from main to nat, expo to expo. ##
They are within limits. And as a BW player I've never ever cared about main-to expo distance on maps with ramp. Distance from ramp is the deciding factor (unless its like half map from main). But that will be sure looked upon.
As for pathing, I don't think it's normal for a nowadays player to attack-click the other side of the map and expect good results. With maps like Rush Hour and Beaks of Baekdu (the most balanced OSL map by stats) global pathing has clearly become irrelevant and has been sacrificed to boost variativity. And no, I'm not planning to make this newbie-friendly.
Well, while I may have been a little harsh, I don't mean a personal offense towards anyone, and thx for your comments and suggestions. I'm working on a new version and it could take a somewhat long time. What I tend to stress is that I'm making my map and not Ice LT or Nightmarejoo's map so its concept stays the same right here. Minor tweaks are possible, but nothing like "remove the middle" or other such proposals. I would like to also stress that I've seen my share as a player and, during those 6 years that I play SC I've seen tens of thousands games played and hundreds of maps, so, while I'm an amateur map maker, I know how things work, so, even though I'm new here, I would be very glad if you avoided "you don't know shit" posts. Again, no personal offense, thx for comments, new version in the works.
modified by NyRe
|I said re-make them not removing them... They are other better ideas that you can put into this map.|
|Don't try to tell us that the gas issue does not exist. If bottom gas was fastest for you, you have misunderstood something...|
|Hmm, I've tested with toss and it was fastest. However, I've just re-tested it with terran and it was indeed much slower, so it will be reworked. Thx, my bad on that one.|
|I suggest to take a look at (2)gas_issue in the DB.|
There is the small abnormality for toss at bottom, yes. But that's only toss. Directly to the left and directly to the top are equally fast for all races, you should try to stick to those.
The gas issue does not hurt in every mu, but sometimes it can become a game deciding factor, so if it is possible, use top and left gas. No need to make a map worse than you could.
|True. I read that article, but missed the part about toss, and, since I don't generally believe in something until I test it myself (my primary occupation is experimental physics, hehe) I tested it myself and was quite surprised. However, this one has taught me that evrything needs to be verified twice =)|
I'm still in question about tightness, as it doesn't really factor in win/loss PvZ (it just changes unit selection/playstyle, lurkers work better in tight spaces, but so do cannon/storm with reaver/sair), and disrupts timing and chages unit choices in PvT. (it is harder to stop a tornado terran on a tight map, but it is essentially a carrier heaven) Macro maps like Luna favour arbiters late game (in fact, arbiter play was never even considered serious before luna, but it came and tosses had to adapt), this one, much like LT, favours carriers late game. Builds like 2 base mass to carriers are strong on such maps so its not mandatory that T > P on Enchanter. It isn't on Peaks and it's a really tight map. That's why I really need replays before making any serious overhauls.
However, I'm in serious doubt about ZvT here as that matchup isn't very well-known to me. So some discussion on this part would be great.
I really like the new trend for maps that make large scale ground war unpreferred in non-mirrors, so tightness was intended. I need to see whether multiple pathing outweighs tightness and make corrections based on this. A new version with with that somewhat corrected (basically, I don't like the upward trench starting from 10 nat choke as its indeed too tight) is underway, but I intended to make non-macro play favourable on this map and will work towards this direction.
|Dude, ok i can understand that you are "experimental physic" but my comment is from personal experience on other maps, it's not theory crafting...|
|I meant you should check out the map (2)gas_issue. There you can easily verify the harvesting speed for gas on all 50 possible close-to-main setups for all races.|
|NyRe does balance mean nothing to you? If the map is not positionally balanced it is unfair. As a gamer I'm sure you've seen the effects of positional imbalance, zvt NE luna there is a much wider area to cover with sunks which can hurt z a lot. The distances from main to nat are not equal, which means one player can go back and forth from main and nat faster, it sucks for the person with longer distances.|
Racial balance, if terran can easily obliterate any army with tanks because that area is too tight it's unfair. Do you recomend every protoss player sits in their base waiting to mass carriers or get arbiters before leaving? You seem to vastly underestimate storm, it is strong in open areas, let alone in tight areas. If zerg can't flank zvp is too hard; lurks are good in tight areas yes, but 1 storm and 3 goons can make easy work out of many lurks.
The map being protected is gay regardless.
Zerg is usually fine with making 3hatch, 1 to cover the nat and main at one place to defend with sunks, 1 in the main, and 1 in the nat to mine. Now if zerg can't reach the geyser at the nat with 3 hatches they are at a disadvantage. If they can't defend their main and nat in one place they are at a disadvantage. Try learning how to play starcraft before telling experienced mappers and players they're wrong.
The gas issue exists and can be a real positional pain. For example luna SW mines pretty well with 3 miners if I'm correct, but SE needs 4 workers to mine that fast. For example, zvz if 1 is SW another SE the one is ahead by far in gas unless the other takes a drone off and puts it on gas; one less drone is very significant in zvz. The gas issue effects all matchups, it is a positional imbalance, and it is such an easy one to correct. Only a truly bad mapper would choose to ignore such a glaring balance flaw.
2base carrier isn't really that good... Terran will scout it with a comsat or something else and make wraiths or gols to counter. Such a build is easy to stop before it's unstopable, doesn't that strat leave you with fewer troops? If you're already having issues pvt with ground troops, having fewer to rush carriers isn't going to help you.
Nothing in your map needs to be removed persay, but there are positional imbalances and racial imbalances you are overlooking which can be fixed to retain every concept you planned in the map, and keep it balanced.
How long have you been playing starcraft? Not to be offensive at all but you seem really inexperienced with all three races.
|I started in the LT era. Not to start arguing, but LT would be considered unplayable by you since its soooo imbalanced. Well, strangely, people kept playing and winning on it.|
Don't get me wrong, you're basically saying the right stuff, but you're vastly overvalueing it.
And I'm abit stressed by your attitude. I already said gas will be fixed and there's no need to be SO nervous about map protection. I really hope we can talk like gentlemen.
|Of course we can, what I said wasn't meant to be an attack. About protection, here is a thread about bwm thought on protecting maps.|
Yeah I do overemphasize the effects of positional imbalance; most of the time positional imbalance won't win or lose a game; sometimes even small ones can though, and the fact that they create even just a small advantage or disadvantage is really unfair. Positional imbalances (small ones) magnify the strength of luck in the game, luck could give your enemy a bad spot, you a good spot, or vice versa.
My mapping view is that maps should be made with fairness in mind. I hate lt, I almost never play it. There is a lot of positional imbalance in that map. Sure, it's playable, and people win in all mus in all positions all the time in it, but it is still imbalanced, not to mention it could be a skill diference allowing them to win.
Honestly I don't want you to change much in this map, I think the concepts are nice.
To restate what I think you should change that hasn't been hammered in already: I think the gas at the nat should be on the correct side, I think the choke of the nat should be tightened (before the trees), the distances from main to nat should be verified to not be too different (exact equal is nice but not necessary by any means), the north/south expos should be more similar, that is that either they both should have a cliff behind or both not have it, the chokes of the map from the center piece to the cliffs should be equal or close, they are clearly not. Those are just little things I know you could easily fix, and they would help the map be more fair.
--LaCe[D] vs NyRe(1on1, 1.14)
--LaCe[D] vs OseT(1on1, 1.14)
--NyRe vs OseT(1on1, 1.14)
--NyRe vs OseT(1on1, 1.14)
--NyRe vs OseT(1on1, 1.14)
--NyRe vs OseT(1on1, 1.14)
--NyRe vs OseT(1on1, 1.14)
Upload replay for this map