| LML | | |
| too less expansions imo, for a 4player map. Now it has same amount of expos as Luna, yeah, but Luna suxx. When u play 2v2, u will run out of money too fast. |
| flothefreak | | |
the 12h/6h center expos will disturb unit pathing
make some room behind natural minerals so you can place buildings against muta harass etc
decent map |
| BestTarsier | | |
I find that the amount of expansions is perfect for the map. This has gone through a lot of changes, and it isn't going through anymore, this is the final version. I've played the map a lot, the 12 and 6 expos are fine. If look look closely you will see that there is a space all of the expos' mineral lines where you can build two turrets. So it's fine in that respect.
Back to the number of expos, I have played the map quite a bit. There used to be two expansions in the middle, and I've taken them out, they were originally just an annoying obstacle with geysers and minerals in the way blocking paths etc. In the matches I've played 2v2 FFA or 1v1, there have always been enough expos for a very long game.
Thanks for commenting on the map.
modified by BestTarsier |
| flothefreak | | |
no. as soon as the 12h/6h expos are taken and workers mining, units will get confused when trying to pass the expansion horizontally. believe me, we all here have seen enough maps to know about this effect.
and make some room BEHIND THE NATURALS for cannons/turrets. you cant have tested this map to the bones if you have never experienced a zerg wrecking havoc among your natural workers.
you NEED some room behind the minerals.
expo count is fine for 1on1, but i dont know if it works out for 2on2, but as there is no easy second expo, it should be okay. |
| Alumni | | |
Flo is right.
Having room behind the nats to build two turrets? muta harass is still deadly. You want more room behind mineral lines because it's not only for turrets/cannons. An army of 8-12 mutas = two cannons/turrets + some workers = History. Players would prefer to be able to get other units behind mineral lines to help back up their nat defence (marines, goons, etc.). Sometimes players even elect to place a bunker in mineral lines as part of their defence. There's alot of pro gaming replays that show this.
Making more breathing space behind the naturals shouldn't be a tough edit.
.. aesthetically speaking, it looks pretty :)
modified by Alumni |
| BestTarsier | | |
Flothefreak: Nope, I've played the map lots, taking the 12 or 6 expos and I have never seen what you are describing.
About the turrets, just make them inside the mineral line. I don't understand why you are picking at this, there are countless great maps don't have "breathing space" =P In those maps, you work with it and build turrets wherever you can. Muta harasses can be annoying, but a it takes a good player to do a muta harass, and it takes a good player to defend against one. Making it easy for people to defend is an imbalance.
Either way, the map is final. Play the map rather than looking for things you think could be imbalanced, I've edited the map about 10 times since I first posted it on any forum to get feedback, and it has gone through a lot of changes, it is finally balanced as well as it can be, and the version you are looking at is the final version.
|
| Crimson)S(hadow | | |
| gas issue |
| flothefreak | | |
if you want to stop editing a map, you're on the bad track. and you cant put 3 turrets into the mineralline without disturbing the mining workers. it so such a small edit, SO JUST DO IT. for god's sake. you edited the map 10 times? that's nothing compared to our standards; i suggest to stop thinking you'd come here and be the best and most experienced mapper around.
by the way the most "great maps" arent perfect at all. |
| flothefreak | | |
 |
| BestTarsier | | |
Allright, I'm going to do a bunch of FINAL FINAL editing in a few mins. But regarding the middle expos, what am I supposed to do with it? How would you fix something like that? I think people are just going to have to learn how to move their units around their nexus.
EDIT: I am thinking of completely removing the 12 and 6 expos in exchange for small 5 mineral 2500 geyser expos for each player on the side mounds, do you think that would be allright? I don't know what else I can do besides that
modified by BestTarsier |
| flothefreak | | |
that easy actually. i made a rough edit (no deco) to what i would change:
basically what i did is enlarging the highground at 12h/6h to gain a bulge where the expansion would fit in. now unit pathing goes around the nexus, but not between nexus and minerals.
as this would enable siegetanks to hit the natural, i flipped the minerals to the back of the natural area. notice i also made room for defensive structures.
i think your idea of an expansion on the 4highgrounds is brilliant, but it needs to be a low mineral only. a gasexpo would make terrans 3rd gas too easy and early. i pushed the highground some further out (for the same reason as on 12/6) and added a 5minblock expansion.
i only made this on top left starting position to show you my approach. i really like this map, so i made that effort.
i think your map would profit from this setup, gameplaywise, a lot. you need to make the naturals safe from siege tanks at 12h&6h expos, though.
some minor changes that need to be done:
-gas issue in mains
-at 3h/9h, put the gas between the minerals, to the edge to get slightly better pathing there. no big deal but easy to fix. |
| BestTarsier | | |
yeah, you did pretty much exactly what I was going to do =P last night I was about to do all that stuff but I fell asleep and didn't get it finished. But yeah, I was screwing around with it for a while.. Somehow I don't know if the 12 and 6 edits would really work, cause the Nexus is still in the way and who knows if the units would go around the top or bottom, its a 50/50 chance, that's why I was hesitating. You did the exact same thing I was trying, but I've seen people make huge walls of gateways and cannons in the natural expansion which would be tankable from the ciff, and you can't really fix that without close up the expo making it a narrow path which thanks in the MAIN could easily pick off incoming enemies (the widening of expos was an edit I made before, the map used to look a lot different)
So yeah.. I really don't know about that >_<
Also: What is the "gas issue"?
modified by BestTarsier |
| ptar | | |
Gas issue:
http://www.panschk.de/mappage/newsscript/viewarticle.php?newsid=10
I think every1 on this site read this article, cuz somebody said sth about the gas issue. |
| BestTarsier | | |
| Flo can you test that edit you made and tell me if the units don't get jumbled up in the workers? |
| ptar | | |
| I think he tested it already. Flo never upload sth before he tested it :). Also it looks like there is enough space for the units. You should make the change. |
| Testbug | | |
can't you make your own edit and test it yourself?
it's YOUR MAP |
| BestTarsier | | |
Yeah, when I posted that I didn't have time to do it.
He went ahead and did the changes himself so I don't think it's too much to ask to test it again, he tested it before after all to show me the glitch..
I was planning on doing it myself anyways lol I just wanted to know if it would work. Anyways, here I go.
modified by BestTarsier |
| Testbug | | |
come on, you can do it better than flo's ;)
hehe, he was just helping with.. ideas.
now you go and make the gosu version of flo's ideas!! |
| BestTarsier | | |
| So basically, the design of the 3 minerals on each side and the geyser in the middle for the 12 and 6 o clock expos is a huge example of the "gas issue" I don't care about it for the mains cause the difference is like 5 gas so people can suck it up quite frankly, or start using 4 workers, or whatever. But the difference between top and bottom looks pretty huge. So I dont really know what to do here.. |
| BestTarsier | | |
IM FINISHED WITH THIS MAP
FINALLY
NO MORE COMPLAINTS
GAS ISSUE? DONT CARE
I tried flos simple design for 12 and 6 and submitted the map thinking it would work, THEN I tested it, and no, it didn't work, the units just went right UP and around the nexus rather than going under it which LOOKED to be an easier route to take.
So now I have designed the expos in such a way that whether or not this glitch happens is up to you, YOU DEAL WITH IT
lol
but seriously. I'm so tired of this map. And no it's not perfect but it's as close as it can possibly get. So no more complaints ^_^ Thanks for the comments/advice/help
|
| Moebius | | |
| You're welcome. |
| Testbug | | |
why din't you add some more hig dirt and put the gass at 12 and 6 ¬¬
gass in the current position is really bad.
just place it at norht and south of the buildings |
| LaO-Artanis | | |
North and west*
Also, if you don't care about the gas issue, want to play a ZvZ? You can be purp or teal, I'll be blue or red. |
| BestTarsier | | |
Really though if WCG and pro tourneys dont care about the gas issue then it can't be much of a problem. People will have to learn to deal with it by putting one extra drone on gas =P
A lot of maps just aren't possible unless you include the "issue"
lol
Some maps just aren't built for wonky positioning, you can't have gas at the same location for all of the bases. And it's not possible on this map >_< |
| flothefreak | | |
gas issue is most striking for the mains, and there you can easily correct it. for the natural and further expos, positional balance is more important. and dont act like it is only 5 gas - it is about 500 gas after 3-4 minutes, which means _5_ additional mutalisks in ZvZ with the exact same build -.-
a forth drone on the gas is missing on the minerals, which also has a striking effect with the same build.
if your expo setup doesnt work, you need to tweak it.
what about making a forte-like expo at 6h/12h? like, with minerals to the left and right edge but the nexus between? so there wont be any pathing problem.
besides, the gas issue was unknown until we discovered it (articles!) and it gets more and more known; ESPECIALLY the pro tourneys start paying attention to it.
by the way, if you want to survive on this site, stop being so arrogant coming here and thinking your judgement of everything would be better as all the experience of all mappers here. |
| BestTarsier | | |
| Someone's grumpy. |
| ProTosS4EveR | | |
| Flo is always like that. ^^ |
| besttarsier | | |
I changed the minerals and gas in the mains and changed the 6 and 12 o clock expos. The top left main had a glitch where the miners would swerve in a weird direction when bringing back the minerals regardless of the fact that all the mains were the exact same. So I changed it to a simpler mineral design and put all the gas geysers at the top to get away from "gas issue".
12 and 6 o clock expos are now double gas geysers rather than 7 minerals and a geyser, the new geysers have 2700 gas each for fast but limited gas. This makes the expos much more desirable and now people will actually want to take them. Uploading new map Oirectine in a second, check it out. |
| Testbug | | |
shit, no double geyser.
place the gass at the top (exactly at 12 o'clock) 4 mineral fields at each side.
do the same at south:4 mineral fields at the right, 4 mineral fields at the left and the geyser exactly at 6 o'clock.
you might have to add some mor igh dirt there. |
| BestTarsier | | |
| I don't think I could do that. If I added more high ground it would make the main expos tankable (trust me I tried everything). And it wouldn't be a very desirable middle expo if it were 4 minerals each side. I've tried all sorts of placements, adding more high ground and making the main expos either too cramped (a problem I had before but fixed) or tankable, I decided the double geysers was the best solution to make these expos very desirable (after all they are the hardest to defend on the map). The geysers are 2700 each anyways so they you get a nice quick flow of gas and they run out (I might actually make them less, maybe 1700). |
| Paladin-EX | | |
| I remember how many games I played on the original Overlands. I like this version a lot too though. |
(4)Overlands
