| flothefreak | | |
a product of a mindflash that came while reading epidions post concerning blade storm.
the concept should be clear: very close naturals, mainminerals exposed to drops. a slowzeal needs ~20sec to reach a horizontal natural and ~27sec to reach a vertical one. the 3h/9h gasexpo-entries can not be walled with buildings. the island aren't too easy to get. i added minerals on right and left "large isle" so terran will need quite a while to float a CC there due to the longer distance.
i just see the bottom left entrance is screwed. gimme a sec for this.
tell me your thoughts. |
| lnept | | |
seems macrotastic,
this thought of "main minerals exposed to drops", just for this idea you now have to build all your buildings in the back, which as a player ifind annoying actually when my production buildings are way in the back, but thats just an opinion |
| flothefreak | | |
| only partly. another reason is that if the naturals are SO close, you have to put the start location quite near to the choke to encourage zerg taking a FE |
| flothefreak | | |
| and i don't think it should be too marcotastic - main and natural minerals are 7 blocks each. all expos are very low on mineralcount actually. |
| panschk[FP] | | |
| I feel like the doodads in front of every player's nat could make trouble. Besides that it looks nice. I am surprised to see you back at more "standard" maps though ;) |
| ScoutWBF | | |
NEVER,I repeat NEVER split the main minerals that gay.I hate it when my SCVs fuck up and slide from side to side and couldn't mine for 6seconds because they slided all the time.Make it a whole line that is fitted together and not that 2-3-2 style.
Fuck the "reaver" argument.Reavers make the damage by being droped into the economy and fucking up 15workers at once or they die.With this minerals it's useless to build a reaver because you kill like 4 workers and then they are miles away. |
| flothefreak | | |
i added those doodads because the natural would be quite open otherwise, so i thought having a few obstacles would help a bit.
and yea panschk, that is kinda surprisingly for me, too ;D
scoutWBF, you're wrong. you are no protoss player, so don't talk about what makes reavers effective.
modified by flothefreak |
| AiurZ | | |
you dont need holes if you drop reavers correctly.
put them up against the minerals and the scarabs push through, or drop amidst the workers themselves.
that being said, having the minerals in one line instead of seperated makes stuff like cannons trapped behind and manner pylons easier to do, which is in general really gay.
learn to place buildings so that they speed up your mining time, or just build more miners instead of complaining about stupid shit. |
| flothefreak | | |
| no that is no true, aiurz. having an open mineral line is very important for reaver harassment. reaver drop is NOT about sacrificing it to kill 15 probes. |
| Arden(WoF) | | |
| Nobody would bother microing a reaver/shuttle unless they knew that they had a chance to salvage the reaver. Otherwise they would drop it, get two scarabs in, and let it die. |
| lnept | | |
| i beg to differ arden, if you've ever seen a pro reaver drop, THEY WANT TO KEEP IT ALIVE AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. because a reaver is also a stall as well as a worker killer, dont forget. most reaver drops are 1 gate, so the faster you lose that reaver, the faster you'll have a terran rush at your door |
| AiurZ | | |
"no that is no true, aiurz. having an open mineral line is very important for reaver harassment. reaver drop is NOT about sacrificing it to kill 15 probes."
if you place the reaver up against the minerals, it will push the scarab through the minerals, which will incidently take a shorter more direct route than going through a hole would in general.
besides that, dropping in the middle of mineral lines will have the same effect, and in a lot of cases is a better alternative because it really cuts the time a scarab has to travel, giving the other player less time to react.
the first option puts your reaver in more danger, and the second doesnt really either. |
| MillenniumArmy | | |
nvm my comment
modified by MillenniumArmy |
| flothefreak | | |
that was incredible
i openened a public game called "1on1 illusion" and wanted to wait until someone finally joined. what happened was seriously a surprise: after 10seconds, there were 3 people in the game so we played 2on2.
crazy :D
one of them was noob, though so the game ended quickly.
then i gave it another try and again, after 5 sec i had an opponent. he was from the german clan DFDS.
we immediately agreed on playing both random and spawned both with non-mainrace. me, being P spawned as Z, while he, usually playing terran, was protoss. shame on my zerg skills, he owned me :)
but it was a very cool game - and fast past, with lots of micro. i am really proud the concept worked out exactly as i wanted it to do. i went FE, while he rushed - micro forever ;)
i think this will be one of the best maps i ever made. check out the replay! |
| lnept | | |
| it might have been exciting in game, but that was a seriously boring replay :P |
| flothefreak | | |
| i was mainly talking about the start, which exactly followed the gameplay i wanted so badly to have on this map. it is the concept, and it worked out as smooth as i could be :) |
| flothefreak | | |
| walling problem on bottom right position fixed. extempore solution, but i had to make the map playable for sunday clanwar (the earlier edit, the better). i will think of something more comfortable later. |
| NastyMarine | | |
| blues base needs to be wider near the bottom imo |
| panschk[FP] | | |
i played it vs wut), imo the mainbases are just too small. I could not go into macro mode (I was at blue start pos, it really is smaller than the others T_T)
Your clanmates hated on the map because it has 7 mineral spots in main, but that aint a problem to me ;) |
| NastyMarine | | |
| purples main = blues main.. at least make them wider |
| flothefreak | | |
hm strange, i played it about ~25 times now, i never had problems with that...this may depend on the fact that i create a mainbase in a way _I_ can see how i'd build. i will see to that, though.
my clanmates hated on the map? or yours? half of my clanmates wants badly to play on this one- maybe you played the wrong ones :D
i know having less than 8 minblocks is annoying for players because "i grab their money away" (while 9 isn'tt questioned at all), but hey, it is about balance :]
so i won't change it. you actually need this for zerg, if you once make their FE _so_ risky |
| flothefreak | | |
| oh i guess the dentist was a bit sad in the matter of fact that we dont obey to his 12yearold-will :( |
| Valkyrion | | |
| 1.7 rating....poor illusion with those idiot that they turn. |
| NastyMarine | | |
suggestion that may or may not need changing:
some doodads near the nats mite need removing since it may or may not be too much of an obstacle on the way in or out of the nat.. |
| flothefreak | | |
yeah i know about them...but the natural is quite open, so i thought it might help a bit...
no players complained so far, however, if it is needed, it can be done fast |
| flothefreak | | |
| still some people thought it was not micro-orientated enough to cover the incidental approach. so guess what, 30secs of work: ultra-hardcore-micro-version deluxe 12.0d with less doodads but much more of everything else (except some things like minerals)! |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
| It looks like t could easily slip a small yet lethal mnm force pass z sunks into the main, but if z places sunks closer to there, their gas would be vulnerable; it's just a big opening imo, hard to defend everything, and while u may say that's to prevent turtling, z needs early game d until they can start production; and since main has few minerals z will need to FE more than ever; and what's with the big reaver argument? Also, I guess you meant for the map to have more micro and harassing, but muta harass looks too effective, even with turrets or cannons or spores mutas can pick off 1 or 2 workers easily. |
| flothefreak | | |
look on what you said...
LESS minerals in main FAVOR zerg. it takes quite a long time for terran to create a "lethal" mm force. even if the 2nd zerg gas is vulnerable, the expo still leads to almost twice amount of mineralblocks, which definetly helps. and if i was going for a safe FE, the macro-turtle-style is just back on the way.
plus, the less minerals you have, the less counts the eco-pumping-advantage of terran. and this is HEAVILY: just look on maps with 9/8 setups...mass marines.
and wtf, why do you grap muta harass so out of context? zerg has few mins, has a late (or long no) 2nd gas (your points), and then you proceed with deadly mass-muta harass? dude... |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
| err 6 marines can be lethal if you don't have a timely placed sunk or 2 to stop it... And having 7 main blocks won't slow muta harass much if at all, its tempting to go for since the mining fields of the main are so vulnerable, which is what I said. dude... |
| LGI | | |
| flothefreak, may i make an update of your map? |
| LGI | | |
Well this is a fast draw it needs some terrain details and deco, but you will get my idea.
 |
| flothefreak | | |
| hmhm i guess this would become more macro-style than i want :/ the concept is focussing on micro and drops, so i will keep the current version...thanks for your effort, though :) |
| LGI | | |
No problem i just want it to make it more floating.
But in your version there is one thing that i don't like. Look at GMCS.
P.S. Your map doesn't really look very micro to me whit the open center and first naturals :) .
modified by LGI |
| LGI | | |
Can we make 2 maps out of this? Whit the idea that i suggest but whit your design experience. Because your map might look like a symetric map but it's not. And as it is now (on the jpg that i post) i've started to make it look symetric which i don't like. So if you are intrested i can give you the little started map of the idea on the jpg . Oh and another thing if you have more ideas from the jpg pleace add them!
You know in the end it might turn of something really intresting :) . |
| LGI | | |
Hello? I am talking here!
 |
| flothefreak | | |
not liking this setup :(
i will definetly not change illusion, it is a micro map and will stay one. besides, the weather is so great nowadays, so i hardly spent any time at the PC |
| flothefreak | | |
update:
-enlarged bottom mainbases slighty
-opened up the center
-changed 3h 9h expos: added additional paths from every directions, giving vertical rush 1-2 seconds less to reach target area. also changed mineral setup there, in order to keep most mobility if possible once the expansion is taken. not perfect, but wont cause problems i guess, will test this.
i still dont like the sideislands (3h 9h). i am not sure into what to change them, what do you think about this idea (left side, rough idea):
|
| Antares | | |
| i think it is good as done now, two expos in the islands is better in my opinion |
| flothefreak | | |
i changed into that idea
it looks much cooler for gameplay, a hidden place - but in danger to get dropped, and overall more strategic. i like this much more now, for the side-islands never really pleased my eye...
only thing left to be made perfect: 12h/6h islands...i will collect ideas and change those later, but they dont fit the map yet. |
| Antares | | |
| yeah flo, i see your point now, but i fear players wont expand there so often, because this expo is harder to defend and dont contain gas, so it is not worthy in many's eyes --- just a theory |
| flothefreak | | |
yeah sure - but i think they'll get more attention than the small minonlies before. and as the other expansions (except 12/6) are easy and fast to attack, those minonlies might get some importance in mid- to lategame. at least they are - imo - much better than the former concept.
any other opinions on those updates? |
| NastyMarine | | |
how is T going to be able to reach a P in a diagnal position match? i dont see T > all in this map, but i'd like to see some sort of terrain modifications to help a Terran a bit.
i also do not like the expos near the middle at 9 and 3. it seems disasterous.. i kno it would be so damn hard to secure that expo for any1.. and i also do not like the island expos at 9 and 3 either.. tho they dont seem like any sort of imba. |
| NastyMarine | | |
to further more explain my ideas that it isnt T>all:
it will not be easy for a Terran to expand to an adjacent nat or main b/c it can be easily intercepted by an enemy scout.. the mineral only helps terran (because it isnt defendable, but the mineral count there is too low to be worth alot). |
| Antares | | |
| but terran can expand to the islands then, i dont see problems here |
| flothefreak | | |
| the expos at 3 and 9 used to be closer and safer, but as there were "T>all" comments, i opened them up along with the center. the minonlies have small value jusz because they're so easy for terran - and they are one step to the neighbour natural... |
| lnept | | |
| i just saw this map, i tested horizontal attacks. they went through the expos through those little holes, as does scouting... that is just annoying |
| TSL | | |
| wtf? |
| SynDrome | | |
| cant stop 4 hatch. |
| flothefreak | | |
| holes?? |
| spinesheath | | |
| "can't stop 4 hatch"??? Try to explain that... |
| lnept | | |
| think he means the big natural chokes. hes being a whiner and saying he'll die to 4 hatch hydra if he tries to FE which would only be said by a noob |
| spinesheath | | |
| Oo |
| flothefreak | | |
| well, pathing was okay in early game, but once the expo was taken, it was screwed. so i took those little additional path-holes out. |
| flothefreak | | |
| LGI: neither in the editor, nor in game is a tank dropable there... |
| LGI | | |
Blah, this tank pic is not on the right place...
I am not talking about tank holes, i am talking about from the min only to the nat gas. |
| flothefreak | | |
| uh yeah...i will take care of that soon |
| GeNeRaL)pZ( | | |
| so brasileiro |
| flothefreak | | |
| changed sides. gases have value zero. |
| spinesheath | | |
| Nice to see you again, haven't heard of you for quite some time ;) |
| Lancet | | |
| Nice map. The chokes on the E/W expos atop the plateau look like an excellent place to place dwebs, have you considered that? I can't believe that as of today, 3-8-07, 27 people bothered to rate you map and the average rating is 2.4. But hey, at least you are not being ignored! |
| flothefreak | | |
well, i played 2 games of broodwar yesterday and wanted to give you all a sign of life as well
as this is an old map, i dont have d-webs in it yet, even though i thought about giving it a shot yesterday. we will see :)
is there a way to reset the rating? most of those votes were made in a very early state of the map... |
| spinesheath | | |
| Nightmarjoo once made all his maps have a rating of -1337 or some nonsense like that... So it should be possible to change the ratings, maybe even reset. But they haven't even been reset for one of SP's maps that was good but shit-voted 1000 times... |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
lol it's cool if you're back to stay, like arden :D dwebs ftw^^
oh and don't be jealous for my pimp -1337 rated maps ;D
honestly I disregard the voting entirely for individual maps, hah and I'm sure grief will tell you how I disregard the motw vote too^^ |
| Grief_Stricken | | |
| good joke,joe(l) -_- |
| flothefreak | | |
| Illusion - featuring D-webs NOW. |
| NastyMarine | | |
| interesting |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
| lol they seem fairly useless, why did you place them there and not elsewhere? |
| flothefreak | | |
didnt like them in this map, removed.
changed position of 3h9h gases (still all 4 empty), and reduced mineral value on those expos |
| flothefreak | | |
i added 23 replays, at minimum 3 of each matchup. so it fits the pack's condition. il will probably move the main start location a bit towards upper/lower mapedge so you can build more easily... even if it kills many drops :/
it is hard to change from normal building style into build-facs-gates-raxes-behind-hq-building
modified by flothefreak |
| flothefreak | | |
| larger mainbases, moved mainmins. |
| Excalibur | | |
I like it.
The mid side expos are a little close and probobly will be taken and fortified in.
If you could extend the distance between them a little then that'd be good. I dont know though, looks like that might be a little tight. Possibly just move them back a little, still leave some turret room? |
| flothefreak | | |
| i had a lot games on it, there's no real turteling there. |
| flothefreak | | |
i am thinking of deleting the 3h/9h islands in order to get a more straight gameplay and lower the "expand outside the battle zone"-play. but this would also limit the possbilities of the map.
it would look like this, what do you think of it?
(left side)
i am not sure what to do now. from the pic, it seems to be simpler and making the structure clearer and easier, but from the gameplay point of view, it might hurt the map... |
| flothefreak | | |
thanks for GMCS. sounds reasonable to me.
but as was trying this, it seemed impossible to make this in a comfortable setup...
so i changed a lot of the map. as a second expansion was always kind of hard, i added a minonly for each player, accessable from a ramp near the natural and from the enemy's minonly. this should make the midgame more comfortable for players. as there was much money on the map then, i deleted the islands, which actually sucked :>
i hope you like the changes, the map should be more playable now. furthermore, please tell me what you think about a neutral building (~1500hp maybe) blocking each ramp to the sideminonlies.
modified by flothefreak |
| Grief_Stricken | | |
i would say you have solved well the lateral distance between the expos.
are you sure about deleting the gas there?i mean,dont you think you have a gas shortage on the map?all the more because you have deleted the top&bottom islands with their expos.actually i dont understand why you did this.you must have your own reasons.i think the map would work even so.
if the map would be mine i would restore those island on top/bottom,otherwise the unused surface is a little to big(from a esthetic standpoint).a other possibility is to change the terrain so that you can place those 2 expos on the plateau,whitout gas,somewhere nearer to the map-edge compared to the pos.of the nats.by using this way you can reduce also the useless surface behind them.
and about placing neutrals on that chokes;the only reason can be to slow the expansion in the game.if you want this - well it's your map. |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
| I think grief is mostly right here, I like the changes, but I do think keeping the N/S islands would be nice. I don't think a neutral is at all necessary, it would probably assist turtling anyway. |
| flothefreak | | |
| well, i fear 1on1s on this map would have way too many expos then... |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
| r-point has more still |
| Grief_Stricken | | |
| and again you shoot the first stone... |
| flothefreak | | |
| no stones allowed here. |
| spinesheath | | |
Neither is someone sitting in a glass house nor do you "shoot" stones, but "throw" them. I don't get what you were alluding to with that...
Anyways, I like the current version. I don't think the islands are really necessary, but imo they don't hurt either. Now you have not a single island left, so you can expect people to use air units/dropships a lot less. |
| flothefreak | | |
| ok, as you all think it would be better, i will redo them... |
| spinesheath | | |
You didn't redo them yet... Well, your decision.
Take a close look at the left inverted ramp. I don't think this is as I intended it... |
| flothefreak | | |
i am still in doubt if i should redo them :<
i will play teh map and see if the concept needs 2 islands.
ramp is fixed, thanks
modified by flothefreak |
| spinesheath | | |
| I thought you already played this map thoroughly? Or what are those replays? |
| DeSade | | |
| Islands are always good imo |
| flothefreak | | |
| ya and in all those replays, the island werent used much - and additionally, the 3h/9h expos were all islands (!), too. so i dont think 12/6 islands will be needed for gameplay, as the minonly have become ground now :< |
(4)Illusion
-
wut)sQuadron vs 
dfds-pro(1on1, 1.13)
InVinoVeritas(1on1, 1.14)
flothefreak; Acid(x)Zoom vs 
