| Freakling | | |
Ramps are buggy. Try these instead.
With the backdoor and cliff behind natural like this, the map is very T>Z>P.
|
| JungleTerrain | | |
Sup SiaBBo! Is this for the Gambit Cup contest?
Backdoor will be hard for protoss, i think a quick pool will just destroy the backdoor and the nat is already hard to secure |
| siabbo | | |
Long time no see. We tried couple of games and it was very interesting. The map plays very differently than your basic Fighting Spirit. Positioning has a huge role and capturing extra bases feels satisfying but still difficult. Possibilites to take different paths really brings a lot to the gameplay.
We discussed the naturals with jamssi and have planned to remove the high ground and replace it with tight low ground instead. Updates will be edited soon. Even with this version it was actually pretty easy to secure fast expansion as protoss with cannon fast expansion. In the newest version it will be much easier, however. Middle ramps actually work extremely well and it is a very convenient task to defend terran's push by protoss. Protoss basically has a high ground as an advantage. We also made the ramps in the middle a little bit bigger which will make the map feel better.
If the natural temple wil be too easy to destroy, we could always stack couple of them so it's not possible for lings to end the game early.
I'm not familiar with Gambit's Cup but after a little googleing, I think this map would be a great addition for sure!
modified by siabbo |
| JungleTerrain | | |
Oh Jamssi too? lol
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/526687-gc4-map-making-contest
That contest. Deadline is sept. 24 i think. I suggest to submit it, you can always edit later.
Well, in a competitive setting, like the Gambit cup (the players are top foreigners) the map imbalances will be abused heavily. So something like a vulnerable natural will be abused by zerg someway or another. It's not exactly that blocking a mass ling all in or hydra bust will be easy, but rather the possibility of having so many options the protoss has to defend against and spend money to defend against. |
| Freakling | | |
The natural in the version on the picture on TL looks a lot better. I still feel Zerg could have some trouble to defend against a Terran pushing through the tight passage with bio+Tanks before swarm. Maybe add more buildable ground to allow for some forward sunkens (and Terran can probably wall-off that passage with two Depots to protect their flank either way).
I like this, it's a very solid two player map with lots of interesting positional play.
The only thing I am missing a bit are some more neutral expansions that do not clearly belong to one player or the other in an even map split. But most 2 player maps, especially rotationally symmetric ones, have this problem to some extend.
I guess a good point for axial symmetry in 2 player maps can be made here. |
| SiaBBo | | |
The edits are in! The natural has been reworked and ramps are now a bit bigger in the middle. There are also now 5 temples stacked.
Thank you for your comments. We will look at the natural's rocky ground and remove some of it so the natural can be protected more easily with buildings.
modified by SiaBBo |
| Freakling | | |
Have you got the newest ScmDraft release?
You definitely need to fix your ramps. They are still very buggy and inconsistent with regards to terrain levels (or just use my ramp brush file I linked above). |
| SiaBBo | | |
| Ramps are now edited and should work correctly. |
| Freakling | | |
| There are still low ground spots all over them. |
| SiaBBo | | |
Once again the ramps have been modified. If they are still buggy can you be more specific what exactly is wrong with them and which ramps are you talking about? In the game the vision seems to work correctly.
modified by SiaBBo |
| Freakling | | |
Why don't you just have a look yourself in ScmDraft...
Note: ScmDraft's inbuilt FOW preview does not properly predict in-game vision in this (and some other) cases. I think I know why this is and I am about to send a bug report to S.I..
In the meantime, Overlay setting/Microtile Overlay/Height is going to tell you all you need to know.
|
| SiaBBo | | |
I mean, we cannot find these problems you are pointing. We both tried ramps in game multiple times and didn't get even close to your picture. Here's a picture from scmdraft:
https://i.imgur.com/Dof7kUG.png
Are we talking about this? Because looking at this picture the ramps seem just fine. |
| JungleTerrain | | |
Are you guys looking at the same versions? I just downloaded the one that's here and it looks like the picture SiaBBo posted (in regards to microtile height overlay), but the one where Freakling took the picture might be a different version.
Then again, if you look at Microtile Overlay/Height Transition, there are dark spots on that ramp where the tank doesn't receive vision. It doesn't show up on Microtile Overlay/Height though.
modified by JungleTerrain |
| SiaBBo | | |
| Are those both supposed to work simultaneously? It seems tricky to remove those dark spots while keeping microtile height overlay as it's in the picture. Also, in the palette there seems to be this inconsistency where you pretty much have to choose between height overlay and height transition. Or are we missing something here? |
| Freakling | | |
Well, first of, I downloaded the newest version, and this one seems to have in fact most of the dark spots on the ramps fixed. The one I posted the picture of was a version I downloaded yesterday when I made the previous post. You guys must have slipped in a silent update in the meantime.
Anyway, the "height transition" flag you can safely just ignore. As far as I know it does not even serve any function in the engine (various of the tile flags are deprecated).
I think you guys may not fully understand how vision works in BroodWar.
A tile is considered medium/high ground when it has at least 12 [medium/high]/high ground minitile flags and is cosidered vision blocking when it has at least one vision blocking minitile flags (the engine determines this dynamically for every tile at game-start, this is also how ScmDraft generates the respective tile flags from the minitile flags and the resulting tile flags are used for both vision and pathfinding region creation).
A medium ground tile blocks vision from units on low ground.
A high ground tile blocks vision from units on low and medium ground.
A vision blocking tile blocks vision for all ground units, regardless of the terrain level of the unit.
The terrain level of a ground unit is determined by the minitile flag under the unit centre (centre pixel of the unit's collision box, coordinates rounded up to next integer value). |
| Freakling | | |
Double post…
modified by Freakling |
| JungleTerrain | | |
I figured transition tiles didn't really do anything, I guess I know for sure now :O That's why I thought it must have been a different version since it looked alright when I took a look at it. However, there are still a few spots on the ramps that need to be fixed. It was only a handful if I remember correctly.
I feel like zerg third gas might be difficult... Or maybe I am wrong. Holding high ground with ramps might be a bit easier than it looks.
I'm saying this because the corner expansions are already facing a wide upward ramp. I would personally make it smaller (normal width). Also, since the clear option for a third gas is the corner expansion, a lack of choices means there is no guessing game/scouting possibility, which I think is a terran buff vs zerg, maybe in tvp as well. The distance to the corner expo seems a bit long.
I'm not necessarily suggesting changes but thinking how the map would play out/theorycrafting.
modified by JungleTerrain |
| Freakling | | |
EDIT: Sorry for tripple posting, the site hung up on me just when I tried to submit the post…
I'd take the high ground expansion at 3/9 o'clock as a third as Zerg. The corner expansion cannot efficiently be defended with a few Lurkers, is hard to reinforce and easy to get to by the opponent.
What troubles me more is how relatively easy it seems for Terran to defend a 4th/5ths gas base. I think the map needs some wider ramps and open spaces at strategic locations. Arguably, the map should be wider than 96 to allow for more room.
Have you thought about some kind of tight choke in the very centre between the two large plateaus? I am thinking a small valley with a normal or even tight (restricted to small units) ramp leading down to it from each plateau would work well (similar to the small low ground paths on Outlier).
modified by Freakling |
| SiaBBo | | |
Thank you for explaining! But can you please point which ramps still need some adjusting or are we talking about edges of ramps which would really not affect gameplay and are like that because of visual appeal? The picture looks good right?
About gameplay, it looks like zerg can easily secure 3rd base. That 3rd base is either at 3 or 9 o'clock. Small ramps are very easy to defend with just a couple of lurkers for example. 4th and 5th gas is not so easy to defend anymore which is kinda the point. You must move your army actively. From a couple of games the direction of the game has different. Sometimes players expand vertically and sometimes they expand horizontally. But at 3 and 9 o'clock, that is supposed to be the 3rd base. However, I've seen protoss and terran also taking the middle-ish expansion with a gas as 3rd gas. I fear that changing corner expansion ramps to normal ones would make it too easy to protect and it would go against the nature of the map.
EDIT to Freakling: Terran actually doesn't have that easy job to protect all the expansion because they are pretty scattered and there are still many ways to flank or even attack straight to main. This is just a conclusion from few matches.
About the tight passage in the middle, I kinda like that idea. Would that make those plateaus too small since making that passage in the middle would eat space. Still, that is something to try for sure.
modified by SiaBBo |
| Freakling | | |
| I don't think you'd need much space. Just make it ramp down, ramp up with a couple of tiles in between where now there are those sticking out edges from the plateaus facing each other. |
| JungleTerrain | | |
3 and 9 don't seem like good places for zerg thirds. They are easily tankable from the low ground and heavy rax builds in modern tvz give terran a lot of map control. That means that terran can siege the 3 or 9 from the low ground and then the initiative is on the zerg to make a play.
I am assuming 3hatch muta on most games too, but I have seen people turn to lurkers more often nowadays (i think because they don't like the latency). |
| jamssi | | |
Here are two possibilities for the middle:
#1
#2
Which one do you guys prefer?
modified by jamssi |
| Freakling | | |
@Jungle: One of the reasons why I think Terran will have an easy time and the map should be wider to provide more space.
@jamssi: #1 is exactly what I had in mind. #2 is overly complicated, I think. |
| SiaBBo | | |
Yea I like the first one a lot too. We will maybe put this one into play.
I still don't think that tanking the 3rd base is a big deal. Many maps have that "problem." Even so, I don't see that as big problem honestly. We will ofcourse test that and see how it works out. |
| JungleTerrain | | |
I prefer #1 to #2. Although the simplest option would just be #2 without the side ramps. Up to you.
I think you could possibly tile-edit some overlord spots around there too with high desert compound.
And I agree, some play-testing would be good to see how the map plays out, especially in regards to third gas.
I also think you could possibly squeeze in an expansion between the corner expansion and the side ones at 3/9 o'clock. Some stuff would have to move around a bit, but just an idea.
modified by JungleTerrain |
| Freakling | | |
I would definitely move the geyser of the 3/9 o'clock expansions away from the cliff for multiple reasons:
- They are just too vulnerable now.
- In the positions they are now in they mine very slowly.
- Workers will invariably get in the way of units moving through the expansion. |
| Freakling | | |
Another thing: Don't go too crazy with player colours.
P1 needs to be red, P3 needs to be teal and P8 should be yellow or pale yellow, or allied colours will be screwed up and players will complain.
Colours above 12 (dark aqua) do not work reliably in 1.16 and not at all, as far as I know, in SCR.
Since this is a Desert map, you should definitely avoid brown, as it is pretty much the perfect camouflage colour on Dirt. Purple is also rather meh, contrast wise. So replace those with tan and green or something along those lines. |
| SiaBBo | | |
Middle is now edited. Also changed 3rd base's mineral/gas formation. Player colours are also adjusted.
The map seems to look like the final version. I don't really like the idea of making another expansion since 1) it's not really needed and more importantly, 2) it would be too close to other expansions and would make turtling easy and would create a situation where you can secure all required expansions on one side of the map. |
| Freakling | | |
If you put the geysers at 3/9 at the other end of the mineral formations they'll mine a lot smoother.
I would also put the geysers at the naturals and at the low ground expansions next to the mains directly above/below the resource depot position to avoid awkward mining paths.
You can improve gas balance for the bottom left corner base by putting some doodads or other unwalkable tiles below the the geyser.
modified by Freakling |
| SiaBBo | | |
| Fixed geyser positions. |
(2)Planet L2P 1.5
-
jamssi vs 
SiaBBo(1on1, 1.16)
SiaBBo(1on1, 1.15)
