| Hans-Titan | | |
A 2 player space map, made by me ^^!
Balance issues, suggestions, ratings - post 'em!
Regds
Hans-Titan |
| yenku | | |
| Nice. The path to the opponent is nice, expos, high ground with huge ramps and all that good stuff. It definately looks like it would play nice. before i forget, the topright, the thin walls you made dont go to the expo like they do on the other side. But otherwise, i see nothing really unbalanced. Great map once again by Hans-Titan |
| Hans-Titan | | |
Thanks for pointing that out - I'm gonna change that.
Also I would like to know if getting a 3rd gas is to hard for Z and P vs T (tank range between gas expos - see GMCS for more info!)!
Regds
Hans-Titan |
| Starparty | | |
| Perhaps make 1nat with gas instead so all can have equal easily defendable gasexp.. |
| Starparty | | |
| Also see the articles section for info on optimal gasplacement (1 main base is kinda off.) |
| Hans-Titan | | |
V. 1.10 is up:
changes: Removed 2nd expo (the one with gsa) so it can no longer get hit by tanks.
Minor changes, such a mineral placement, raised ground and such.
Regds
Hans-Titan |
| boongee | | |
I might be fucking stupid, but I'm gonna say P>Z on this one. o_O
I just feel like P could fast expand and then move out with a shitload of zealots... taking their 3rd base with gas and then completely overpowering the Zerg when he has no room to flank.
I'm not dissing the map at all. If you can make a map that favors Protoss, then you win the prize :D |
| Hans-Titan | | |
There are 3 routes around the map = plenty of room to flank.
I don't think this map is way to P>Z... But perhaps thats just me..
Regds
Hans-Titan |
| hefty | | |
Hmm, interesting map, but you are a daredevil. Many of the design choices can be questioned. The 1st gas exp can be tanked, and this might make z and p avoid it versus terran. Then again, both 2nd and 3rd exps are siegable, which leaves only the exposed 12 o'clock and the highly siegable center expo as alternate choices. I'd say a game versus terran would give most zs paranoia - they would have to rebuild exps as terran tears them down. Of course you can defend the exps (namely the 3 o'c and 9 o'c exps, but a push with highground advantage is scary.
I would make the center plateau smaller so that it doesn't expand so far north (thus also preventing direct siege on 3 and 9 o'c). Furthermore, I would change the distance between 1st gas exps so that they aren't directly siegable from the other side, but you can leave a plateau there to make cliffing possible. Lastly, you don't need the mineral block in the center expo since this expo is rather exposed anyway. |
| hefty | | |
| Another questionable design choice is that main resources are tankable from their naturals. This is probably not to big a deal as you wouldn't want to lose your natural anyway. |
| Hans-Titan | | |
I'm almost 100% sure that the 1st gas expo cant be tanked from the other side - gotta test that, but I think the distance is to far.
I C-o-u-l-d make it so expos at 3+9 arent tankable, but Lurker and templar drops are bad as hell there, so its pretty balanced.
Only real problem with contain is PvT, but if terran get that close, its GG already..
12 o'clock expo is a very open expo.. and so shall it remain.
Im thinking about removing the very center expo, since the only race that really can take it is T, while pushing. This will also move the raised ground further downwards, to make the top-route more safe from tank-fire.. Any thoughts on this?
Regds
Hans-Titan |
| hefty | | |
| Well, I'm not telling you whether or not to remove the center expo, it is ok as it is, but not too attractive. It's a design choice I leave to you. When I talked about 3 and 9 being tankable, I was also referring to pushes coming from the raised center. I believe tanbks might be able to hit the expo from there, and if not, they will surely be strong in a push. I'll add that to the GMCS. This is partially why I argue you need to make the raised center smaller. |
| Yenku | | |
I agree that only a terran could easily grab that center expo, so an alternative to taking it out could be adding ramps. So it'll be there, but its easier for P or Z to take.
The high ground behind 3 and 9 aren't nearly as bad as all the seigeable ones on Legacy of Char, and its the third gas so i guess its ok.
Test tanks on the 1st gas expo and see if thats ok.
Good job on the map again. It looks fun despite the fact many expos are troublesome. |
| Knight | | |
| I figured its like Ride of Valkyries. Most of the battles will take place over the middle between the two bases. Might be a little more interesting if you stuck a base in-between, with two geysers and 10 minerals. |
| Knight | | |
| And take out a symmetry of expansions. Too many, most will be short games. |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
random map ftw, I like this one, but I think a custom ramp from the top of the plateau to the bottom would help with flanking and maneuverability in the map
ugh gas issue I think, and it looks awkward for both players. There might not be a gas issue cuz it's so awkward, red may have no advantage =/ |
| Kinosjourney | | |
| Really nice map but please add gas to the nat and remove gas from the minonly. Also at the middle highground, it would be nice with a ramp at the top so a P or Z player could flank a terran push from behind if they go by the high ground. |
| coV | | |
Lol Kinos...this mapper is long gone, look at the map ID 287 and we're at 3018?
modified by coV |
| Kinosjourney | | |
Holy shit, didnt see that O_O
Wonderfull map anyways.
modified by Kinosjourney |
| levelzx | | |
The most problematic thing about this map is the highground path. Not only it looks ugly, it's also tight and narrow, making Terran almost invincible as he starts pushing. I'm also predicting a lot of Bunker rushes here as P and Z both have 2nd gas far away from main.
Conclusion: you should add more ramps to central plateau (reversed ones from the top) and probably change expo layout a bit (or simply move 2nd gas to minonly natural). |
(2)Futurama1.10
