| Freakling | | |
EDIT: Version 1.00 finished.
For the map picture really doesn't do justice to all the little details, here are some action shots from the map (pay special regard to all those projectiles missing, including a tank shell in the second shot :D):
My newest work in progress...
modified by Freakling |
| JungleTerrain | | |
Interesting...
What are the Pylon energy fields for? Or do they represent where you will put spells later on?
And the desert tiles along the middle of the map will be ramp valleys? |
| Freakling | | |
Same as ZZona: Force fields (provide cover vs. ranged attacks).
And yes, middle will be valley with ramps (it already is, but the blends definitely need improvement :P)
Oh, and merry Christmas every one...
Except you, english and americans and whoever else has to wait for the 25th for their presents ;) ...
modified by Freakling |
| K_A | | |
| :D merry christmas freakling |
| JungleTerrain | | |
No... we open our presents tonight :)
Pays off being Chilean bro
Merry Christmas!
modified by JungleTerrain |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| Jeajea Merry Christmas :D |
| ArcTimes | | |
| Merry Christmas :)) |
| Freakling | | |
| In case you want to test/play around with it - the force fields are now functional. |
| ArcTimes | | |
| I don't know what the force fields do. Explain it to me :D |
| K_A | | |
| They block bullets the same way trees do |
| Phobic | | |
I feel like the outward sand passages crossing the low dirt rift should be smaller to accommodate close positions. This would make those thirds safer (yay zerg!!!) and allow armies to respond to flank attempts with much more grace(yay Terran).
Otherwise looks great. |
| Freakling | | |
I see what you mean. I also realized that you can tank those thirds from the low ground (which is a bit awkward) and the clockwise one even more so... So I guess making that passage "1 force field wide" would avoid some issues.
EDIT: This looks more like it.
modified by Freakling |
| Freakling | | |
Uh... Has any one else yet realized that standard desert ramps are basically unwallable at the bottom? rax 3 depot wtf?
Anyway, I made them wallable (1 rax, 1 depot, spawn inside base for all of them) with the additional upside that you can actually block them with 2 units now too.
modified by Freakling |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| Me lieks the inverted ramps you made for once :p |
| K_A | | |
| Teal and purps nat gas might be tankable... |
| Phobic | | |
| He didn't make those ramps I've seen them b4 |
| Freakling | | |
Would be an enormous coinicidence if they'd be 100% identical to any other ramp though. I just edited around on them until they fited what I needed.
modified by Freakling |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| how do the forcefeilds work? what terrain you use? |
| Freakling | | |
| Maybe I should write a complete guide on it when I am done with this map. |
| CrystalDrag | | |
| :D thanks |
| Freakling | | |
So... Finished (barring some minor bugs/aethetics that I may discover)...
Finished deco and tile editing, also eliminated all the tank issues (thanks K_A). |
| Freakling | | |
"How to do stuff" guide.
modified by Freakling |
| Phobic | | |
| Freakling, I wish I was as competent a mapper as you. |
| Freakling | | |
| Update with observer version |
| CardinalAllin | | |
18th April 2016
Freakling, you mentioned Roadkill needs a patch.
Someone mentioned to me that this map also might need one. He said the mining in top left main is bad.
(beware this page doesnt currently have the latest version, see bwmn version)
Do you want to look into this? Next seaon is 1st June. I think we could aim to do an update for then.
modified by CardinalAllin |
| Freakling | | |
Can you get any more details on that?
Also, why not just remove this map, I don't think it is balanced.
EDIT: I think I figured it out. For Z and P Drones/Probes at the two bottom patches can sometimes go the wrong way to the back of the mineral line when first ordered to mine and remain in that bad worker path. However, it is a self-correcting bug which is resolved by normal worker migration, manual worker micro or placing a building at the mineral line edge. The optimal worker paths for those patches, once obtained, are actually stable.
modified by Freakling |
| CardinalAllin | | |
I havent checked ingame myself yet, it was just a passing comment from someone.
No need to remove this map (dont have to bother doing an update either, its only if you want to really. Absolutely no problem if you dont, I just thought Id let you know what someone told me).
If you wanted, you could delete the forcefields outside the nats and make it more standard there with some buildable and a few pillars to hide behind. The map would still have the 'cool factor' forcefield mechanic but only on the halfway lines of the map.
And it would be much easier to take a 3rd base. |
| Freakling | | |
Simulpost ;D
Yeah, or maybe at least remove two of the force fields per nat and add some pillars/walls there...
I would have to retest/potentially redo all mineral lines after that anyway, as pathing butterfly effect would probably screw some of them up.
modified by Freakling |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Yep can leave one forcefield. Just make sure that its quite far away from the nat and path to 3rd so it cant be used to contain too hard.
At red main, it would be the bottom right forcefield that stays.
And at teal main, it would be the top left forcefield that stays.
Would you reposition them?
Here is a really poor pic of how I imagine it could be, this is without repositioning the forcefields at all:
Yellow is buildable ofcourse. As you can see I was thinking quite a lot of walls, and fairly big ones too.
But yeah, up to you. You have a month to play around so its all good. |
| Freakling | | |
| That is what I had in mind. I don't think there will be much repositioning required, if at all. Not sure about he walls yet. But I think leaving the ground where the force fields are removed mostly buildable would be nice, so terran can nicely entrench with turrets and depots. |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Yes I agree with having a lot of buildable space, more than is in the picture. Pretty much the entire path from the nat to the 3rd would be buildable (behind the pillars).
At red main, there would be buildable space to the left of the top pillar. So terran can wall off that choke with 3 depots. The enemy can still move freely through the forcefield though (on the right side of the pillar).
At teal main, it would be buildable space to the right of the top pillar. It would require less buildings to block that choke due to the symmetry on the map but its acceptable positional balance.
Id do a strip of unbuildable to stop creep spread out of the nat though.
Looking forward to it! I always liked this map. It would be great to see it become a really solid map.
Theres a lot of options, you could get creative with pylon and depot walling options.
At red main, to the right of the middle pillar, around the ramp that leads to the central lowground.
And again at red main, to the left and right of the bottom pillar so players can wall off the 3rd but high up at the bottleneck rather than at the standard choke. For example, you could make it a 6 tile gap to the right of the bottom pillar (red main). |
| Freakling | | |
| I don't really see the problem with creep spred. Sure, some forward colonies can be useful to buy some time against a siege (especially with tank needing to siege and unsiege while advancing), but it's not much of an advantage. The real problem with too much buildable space in front of a natural is that it makes it also easy for terran to hard contain an opponent. |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Yeah it can be nice to make 1 or two sunkens to delay TvZ. The current set up allows this already and is good.
Consider Circuit Breaker where zerg sometimes makes 5 or so sunks with a couple of spores and lurkers. All of this is outside the nat on the path to the min only, behind the double bridge. Thats when it gets dangerous depending on how easily Protoss can expand himself.
On circuit its ok because P can get up to 4 base easily, but on this map, taking a 3rd is really hard for Protoss. So we have to limit zergs defensive options a bit too.
Lurker contain strategies are not very common in ZvP (but maybe are more common at medium levels). If this map does retain a single forcefield outside each nat then lurker contains are boosted slightly. So thats another reason to reign in zergs options slightly.
But yeah I agree its Terran containing Protoss that is one of the primary concerns when looking at this part of a map. |
| Freakling | | |
Circuit Breaker has strong defender's advantage due to the bridges, though.
Also, consider that effectiveness of both mutas and hydras is greatly reduced in effectiveness on this map (whereas lurker ling is boosted), so early game Zerg actually doesn't have it that early to actively pressure a Protoss. |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Im not sure what you mean about circuit having strong defenders advantage due to the bridges, which race you were talking about, which point were you countering? I will try to reword my points.
Circuit Breaker doesnt have a strip of unbuildable outside the nat which means creep spills out of the nat and so a sunken lurker spore field can easily be extended to cover a large area outside the nat. Most maps dont allow that. On circuit its ok because Protoss can choose to not engage and can quickly get a 3rd and 4th base to stay in the game. So zerg having this incredibly stong defensive position is not a problem because Protoss can keep up economically rather than having to do damage.
Or you can describe it the other way around and say that because Protoss is able to take a 3rd and 4th base easily, it means that zerg should be given a stronger defensive option, and hence it is a good thing that zerg is able to make large sunken fields outside his nat. (Im not necessarily saying circuit is balanced or good or whatever, Im just using it to illustrate a point because it is the most famous modern map that doesnt have any unbuildable outside its nats).
On this map though, it is hard for Protoss to take a 3rd. If this was combined with allowing zerg was to make a huge defensive sunken field outside his nat, then Protoss would fall too far behind. So this map shouldnt allow zerg creep to spread too far out of the nats(like majority of maps). So Im suggesting to follow the standard convention here.
The map as it stands currently allows for the perfect amount of creep spread. It would be good to keep a thin vertical line of unbuildable tiles and maintain this. And then have the large buildable space for terran beyond that. Does that make sense? Ill redo the picture if not.
Because the space for terran is going to be quite large it means Zerg would theoretically be able to plant an extra hatchery there and make some sunkens after it completes, but that is a big extra cost and its ok if that happens.
I agree that mutas and hydras are weakened by the forcefields. I also agree lurker ling is boosted. When you weigh these 2 facts together, Id say that zerg is helped a bit more than hindered overall but this isnt too big of a deal.
The big threat in ZvP is always hydras really. On this map hydras can attack the nat strongly or the protoss 3rd, the forcefields arent going to really help Protoss defending that. So hydras still pose a full threat. Also, the large open areas between the forcefields give plenty of opportunity for mutas to snipe ht as normal so they are still plenty strong.
Do you think Protoss will be able to take a 3rd base fairly acceptably after the changes? I think it will be ok ish but Id certainly rate it fairly high on the difficulty scale.
I think the 3rds are very far away, the path from the nat to the 3rd is very wide open (even with 3 largeish pillars added) and there is only 1 entrance into the 3rd meaning probes might get trapped and slaughtered by hydras.
So the point was dont give zerg any extra bonus defensive options (like circuit breaker does) and instead follow the norm by putting a lid on creep spread out of the nat.
Important:
Id definitely add an 8th mineral patch to the 3rds during this update and make the gas at the 3rds a full 5000. |
| CardinalAllin | | |
Yes, zealots might be able to delay hydras crossing the map by engaging at the halfway line using the forcefields for cover, but generally Protoss will want to simply retreat all his zealots back to his cannons if he sees hydras coming, and mount his defense there, so the map will play quite standard in these situations.
But if we assume that zealots CAN be used to delay hydras really effectively at the halfway line using the forcefields, then that is great! The idea is that we want a map to make hydras slightly weaker and stop there. We dont want to make hydras a bit weaker but then give zerg a huge boost in another way as that simply resets the z>p bias as it were. (using a cliche to save time).
Perhaps we disagree on our evaluation of how weak/strong hydras are on this map? I think they are strong and that the 3rd is hard to take for protoss.
Perhaps it would be easiest to see how the update turns out and assess the situation then. |
| Freakling | | |
Speedlots just crush Hydras under force fields.
And what I mean is that sunken defense can be particularly effective on Circuit Breakers because attacking unit have to file in across the bridges or through the rather tight passage from the mineral only. Here Protoss can just wrap around with their whole army and crush the Zerg defenses. |
| CardinalAllin | | |
I agree that zealots will destroy hydras under forcefields. The thing is that zerg can run around an alternative path if protoss keeps his zealots at the halfway line (particularly if its left vs right spawns).
So Protoss will probably retreat his zealots back to his cannons and freshly spawning ht before they get cut off and to mount a more effective defense. This is talking about timing attacks. The zealots will be able to delay the hydra timing attack a bit and that is great.
Once we are in the 'late' mid game with zealot goon ht observer army, then yes hydras will be a bit weaker as they will have to avoid the forcefields.
However there are plenty of large open areas that arent covered by forcefield so battles will play out quite standard. Zerg will be perfectly happy playing this stage of the game. And as you mentioned, zerg can potentially benefit from the forcefields himself with lurkers and lings.
So my feeling is that the map plays fairly standard in some ways. Therefore we can evaluate the state of balance regarding PvZ based on how hard it is for P to take a 3rd base. And as Ive said I think its relatively hard for P to take a 3rd here.
So I think I understand your counter argument about Cricuit Breaker now.
You are saying that sunken defense style is only powerful on circuit breaker because the double bridge exists. And if the bridges werent there then it wouldnt be that powerful.
However, my opinion is that it is always going to be a big costly commitment to bust down a sunken lurker field (imagine on Toad Stone instead). We want to encourage Protoss to do it but it is only going to be a good decision if he has the economy to back it up. If he cant replenish his army atleast once and quickly then (if it fails) he will be left very vulnerable, or without the chance to take a new base. And the gameplay will get slowed down in a negative manner. It will be too easy for zerg to counter attack etc. It snowballs and zerg wins eventually.
So I disagree with the 'protoss can just wrap around and crush the zerg'. I think its always going to be a pretty costly and big commitment decision to do that.
WITH ALL THAT SAID, I absolutely love it when zerg extends his sunken field outside his nat. Toad Stone and Niobe allow it for example. (Niobe maybe shouldnt to be fair but I like the style a lot).
This discussion started with a fairly casual remark of mine. I wasnt 100% adamant that it had to be that way. I was just saying Id probably keep it the way it currently is in that regard.
But if you want to change it and allow zerg to creep spread fully then ok, I will go with it. Infact, yeah lets do it! It will be cool to see zerg play that way on desertec.
Something I am more convinced about is adding an 8th mineral patch and making the gas 5000 at the 3rds.
A worry is ofcourse TvP particularly left vs right spawns.
Protoss sort of has to take his 3rd at 12/6. He cant really take 3/9 as his 3rd. This means that terran can push the 3rd base very easily in left vs right spawns.
It might be a really good plan to remove the top and bottom forcefields from the vertical centre axis.
Another thing that can be done is to make the choke into the 3rd base only 4 tiles wide (2 pylon wallable). This would be like Neo Ground Zero. Id seriously consider doing these things.
Currently the map is version 1.01 (in the BWMN version). If you want to do updates from 1.02 or 1.1 or somthing (and up) thats cool. When the new version gets finalised and put onto iCCup Ill label it version 2.0. |
| Freakling | | |
| Maybe the best thing would be to have continuos, but narrow strip of buildable ground that would allow Terran to put up a nice ring of turrets and depots, but does not allow for a deep sunken field. |
| CardinalAllin | | |
| Thats an option, Queensbridge is a bit like that. Its not as good though. Just a big area of buildable is fine, and allows Terran to paint his own picture. |
(4)Desertec
