|Hehey! I've been mass-mapping and I think I'm getting better :). This map is also semi-experimental with many paths, and semi-difficul |
defendable naturals. Hmm I hope you like this, and if u got any suggestions, post them here, I prolly will update this many times.
Oh, and btw: The minerals blocks are 24 each.
stick to a few maps and improve them instead of mass-mapping. if you bump out one map after another, they will never get any testing/playing
|U might be correct, but I aint getting too much suggestions and I dunno how to improve my maps... :s|
|you can get much looking at the pictures, but even more playing the maps often to see what feels uncomfortable or unfair|
|flo is right. though you have improved so much, mass mapping will hurt you since we are seeing a new map every day. basically, let everyone appreciate the map before showing us a new one.|
on another note. imo the map is awesome. the layout looks well thought out despite being similar to Monty Hall. i think though, you should remove some of the cluttered asphalt doodads to help flanking early game. since in early game players wont be able to destroy neutral building.
question: what are the amounts of each mineral block behind the nats?
|U should read my opening post -.- ... they're 24|
|oops overlooked it XP|
|wow now we're using internet shorthand even in map names. cool|
|Great concept Radix! I think, however, that you have too many neutral buildings separating the paths and it looks a bit ugly, try bringing it down to 2 or 3.|
|the map looks ugly or the neutrals? Imo the map looks sexy... :)|
|is it possible that u can make the main base's ramps closer to the naturals??|
|U mean so close, that u don't have to 3hatch?|
|@lancet I dunno about the neutrals... I wont remove them if others doesn't want to ^^|
|yes @ RaDiX|
-Nat now closer to main (Z don't have to 3hatch)
Any other suggestions?
|not from the pic. you'd have to play the map in order to get improvements|
|I will I hope... ^_^|
|Sorry for the confusion, your map looks OK, what I meant is that there are too many. The connectors between the "valleys" don't need to be that wide, a gap that can be blocked with 3 neutrals is enough. Also I don't like the stasis chamber as a neutral unless it squares somehow with the theme of the map (what is that thing inside, what is it doing in your map?). I would just go with the power generator like you had before or more protoss temples.|
|Hmm it's more about the hp, but I can change them... But why I have so many neutrals? |
Answer: I try to make the map open in lategame...
|middle is too tight, you place an emphasis on the middle with pathing, even without expos being there it will be used, flanking is like impossible in it. t beats p =/ I think there is too much room on the sides, where the expos are. If a game should go on later, it would be hard to defend those expos. I think you need a better balance of rooms here, move some walls around, give the middle more room, and the outtermost layers less room, but not much less, take more room away from the 2nd layer. That layer is more for flanking/alternative routing and stuff, it doesn't need to be that big.|
wtf is with the neutrals. This is definitely not intelligent use of them. 1. Just because you can stack them doesn't mean you have to, use them like real buildings. You just make it too hard to open up the paths with so many. Also, for the most part, I think the map can do without the neutrals. In my map Inertia, although I haven't changed it on the site, the neutrals on the sides needed to be removed. They hurt pathing needlessly, made flanking and movement too hard, and didn't add anything. I think that's what's happening here too. Maybe keep a few, but spread them out to use fewer, and perhaps take out the inner ones to leave pathing holes: this still makes them usefull in limitting movement, but doesn't kill it. If they wanted more room they could kill them still.
I suggest giving NE an inverted ramp to be in the same spot as SW. This makes the distances from main2nat equal, as well as shifts the pathing of the NE one. Right now, buildings made on the right side would face wrong, but buildings in the left of SW would be perfect for pathing.
Other than that, I like the map. Decoration could be better though ;)
|eh i dont think its too tight. i mean.. look at arkinoid... see how tight that is??? i think its fine once the neutrals are destroyed.|
|Yeah, I rly liked nothing u said nightmarjoo :). And don't rly agree them either.. -.-;|
I might re-do the neutrals but wont delete them for sure. (Before testing, should happen this week)
|Don't get rid of the neutrals! The point of the map is that the area behind the gas nat is more accesible by land to your enemy than to you. The neutrals blocking the access from one valley to the next are a compromise between having to go all the way back to your enemy's position to go behind your nat and immediate access to it (with no neutrals) provided you bring along two workers to remove the minerals.|
Having said that I think you should remove all those ugly stasis chanbers and replace them with at most 3 protoss temples like you have in the middle.
|Ok I will do that someday.. :P|
|Your scenario is untittled and in the map description it merely says: "destroy all enemy buildings". Give the scenario a tittle and write a few words about it in the map description.|
|where am I wrong? -.-|
|i suggest using the least amount of neutrals as possible. So breaking a decent hole for troops to travel through doesnt take too long|
|I said that -.-|
|U said I should delete them all....(?)|
|please delete a good amount of neutrals and also i will gmcs.|
this is mapid 2132 and flash's is 3872
|I was being sarcastic.....|
if anything it would be the other way around
|both are blood bath clone|
|now, these are really big mains; monty hall style ...|