| Lancet | | |
Caissa is the godess of chess created in a 1763 poem by Sir William Jones.
Apart from the 2 vespene geysers in your main and nat the only other sources of vespene are in the center, so unless you find a way to defeat your opponent quickly you will have to go there. If you do, you will find that battling in the center of this map requires a whole new set of skills!
Try it and see for yourself. Also please let me know of any ideas you may have to improve the map.
Thanks.
modified by Lancet |
| boongee | | |
| I think terran would have an easy time fighting in the middle. they could simply camp and push slowly through the cracks of the webs with tanks and marines/vults. attacking it would be suicide because like half your army wouldn't do anything |
| Lancet | | |
In principle yes, but while you push "slowly" by the middle the enemy could drop on your main & nat (DTs & Lurkers) or flank you rapidly by the side corridors. Also in regular starcraft you move your tanks rapidly in a mass and siege them as such. Here you have to make sure each tank is in a black spot (in the center) or else it will be useless when you siege them (which is difficult to say the least).
But my point is that the center of this map does not promote the movement of troops for defense and attack in the normal manner to which starcraft players are accustomed to. New ways of playing starcraft will need to be worked out, which is of course fun! In the end you may be right, terran may have the upper hand in these kind of maps but I am sure that imaginative zerg and toss players will find ways to put up a fight. |
| boongee | | |
| yeah, the map will play differently. but you say that equates fun, which isn't always true, trust me. |
| Lancet | | |
| I agree, but this is a game released in 1997-8 and (short of an update by Blizzard) anything that is "new" that changes gameplay (tactic, strategy, defense & offense) is welcome. Dwebs and swarms on maps may cause just that. |
| Lancet | | |
| Actually, it is not that bad because in this map there is enough space between the dwebs. The problem with melee units is when the enemy unit is on the edge of a dweb and the melee unit has to cross the dweb to attack. It will stop motionless next to the enemy unit (if the enemy unit is sufficiently away from the dweb it will attack it normally). The other problem is with ranged units attacking on their own. If they come within range of the enemy unit within a dweb they will freeze. The remedy? Micromanagement. You can't just brainlessly unleash several control groups of your units upon the enemy and let each unit pick its target. You need to pay attention to your attacking units and constantly maneuver groups of them around dwebs or pick specific targets for them. Finally, don't forget about going air, air units have no problem with dwebs and units on the ground have to be maneuvered around the dwebs to attack them. |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
0 decoration =/
Mains are very large
Gigantic nat
The middle expos won't get used if both players are at all competent.
The gap from ramp to expo for W/E is so great that there might as well not be ramps. That expo is oddly placed and easy to attack, only a turtle could take that expo.
The middle is unplayable, just an unrealistic concept imo. The fact that it is so wide will make it hard for the races who need tighter areas, p will probably win often since its hts can always cast under the dweb, but z and t will have most of their army under dwebs.
Sorry, I'm no fan of this map at all. |
| Lancet | | |
"The middle is unplayable, just an unrealistic concept imo"
LOL nightmarjoo, actually I thought you of all people would appreciate this concept because you inspired me to make this map! It was a sentence in one of your comments about the map Namniar:
"You should definitely make a checkerboard of dwebs of the middle. No balance issues there, gives everyone some rough fucking."
This is exactly whatI did! You think Toss will have the upper hand whereas boongee thinks it will be terran (see above). I understand anything radically new will generate resistance at first, just be cool and give it a try.
The middle has to be wide IMO because it will help toss and zerg counterbalance terran.
Your other comments are valid, I did notice the mains and nats are quite large and I could make them smaller. If you feel there is so much gas at the main and nat I could reduce the value of the geysers to force the players out into the center. I meant the W/E expansions to be corridors through which an army can bypass the center, I just decided to place an expansion there,but I can change that. As to decoration, there is vegetation near the water (this is badlands remember) but to tell you the truth I value the concept of a map more than the decorations. However, I will try to change that too.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
This concept is too new, anything I say is honestly completely theory crafting. I have no real experience to talk about this lol, don't take my word for it at all. This kind of map needs a lot of testing. I would rather you nicened the rest of the map before the new concept is tested; after that I would be happy to test it.
btw, I am always an asshole with my comments when I comment when I'm tired, and I was very tired when I posted that :) Perhaps after the rest of the map is bettered and I get some sleep I'll be able to better appreciate it.
modified by Nightmarjoo |
| Lancet | | |
OK,I made the changes.The gas at the main & nat is 4000. The size of main & nat has been reduced. The mineral-only nats are only in the upper right and lower left hand corners of the map. The W/E sides of the map are just corridors that avoid the center with a middle ramp.
Man, this took a long time and I am wiped out. I also reached the sprite limit, probably a first for a starcraft map! |
| Lancet | | |
| Oooops, there is a problem with the placement of some of the swarms. I apologize for that, I will fix it later on in the day. |
| Lancet | | |
| OK, it's fixed. Now you can download the map and check it out. |
| LostTampon | | |
GCMS
edit:
nice idea of the map :)
but id suggest to improve the layout a bit for more eyecandy, those cliffsides could be in a more natural shape + i think those nats are really easy for terran to defend
about the sprite limit: afaik some units cant shoot anymore (which are using sprites, like corsair or valkyrie, interceptor fire etc.)
mayb you could reduce the sprite number by removing all the trees
oh and i forgot that there is a gas issue: blue player needs 4 probes for gas mining, red only 3;
modified by LostTampon |
| Lancet | | |
Thanks for your comments.
I have checked corsairs, valkyries, defilers, queens, high templars etc and they work just fine.
I don't understand the gas issue. The geysers are roughly the same distance away from the command center/nexus/hatchery. When I put more than 3 workers to mine gas, one has to wait outside. How did you determine that blue needs 4 and red needs 3 (and if so how do I fix this, changing the distance)?
I do have to make the cliffside a bit more pretty, I will see what I can do.
The two mounds at the entrance are meant for defense of the nat indeed (tanks, cannons/goons/templars, lurks etc). But units placed there are units (and resources) not available for attacking or defending the main from a drop, there is a tradeoff.
In the center what does LT: d2d4 mean? Also, how did you do that GMCS thing (and what does GMCS mean)? Can I do that too?
Finally, I detected a problem. When I try to build the extractor over the vespene geyser in the nats it does not fit the "square" that normally appears. You only get the green image to build the extractor if you place it outside the square. This is very odd and I have not been able to fix it. You can still play it, it's no big deal, but it's weird.
Thanks.
modified by Lancet |
| Antares | | |
gas issue is a discovery over the years, that same distant geyser placement is not always balanced. if you have the gas below the HQ then you got the gas slightly slower in 1 minit it is just about 16 difference, but in longer terms it is so significant (think of ZvZ and mutas)
top and left placement provides the fastest mining speed, so i suggest to use these. if you need right placement so much, then do it, because right placement is not as bad, but avoiod that if you can :)
modified by Antares |
| LostTampon | | |
if the area in the mid is a checkerboard, then you will also know what d2d4 means ;P
the thing with the extractor placement can happen when you copy&paste more than one unit at the same time :/
@sprite limit, wasnt sure about that |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
LOL so LGI was wrong when he was spamming my one map!
About the map, I like the changes, but I don't think the middle will be used much now, if at all. Also with decoration, I see a lot of areas which could be prettied, for example the mains and those cliffs are solid boring dirt, SW/NE are solid grass, try mixing it up a bit maybe.
Yeah I like the map a lot more now. |
| Lancet | | |
Antates and LostTampon thanks for your comments.
After sleeping on it, I decided to add a second route of entry/exit to the nat. That should make it more difficult to build a "fortress" or contain a player.
I fixed the geyser position to being only top, but I could not get rid of the geyser placement thing. In fact any new geyser I place on the map now has this problem. It does not prevent the map from being played but when you attempt to build an extractor the image will not fit nicely in the square, oh well.
I changed the cliffs, a little at least, and deleted some of the trees (only those close to the water remain, this is badlands).
As to d2d4, LOL, this is suppossed to be a chess board. Caissa is the goddess of chess. The map description reads:
"Of armies on the chequer'd field array'd, And guiltless war in pleasing form display'd; When two bold kings contend with vain alarms, In ivory this, and that in ebon arms!
This isthe first sentence of the 1763 poem by Sir William Jones. And then it says:
"May Caissa be with you!"
Regards.
Lancet
modified by Lancet |
| Lancet | | |
| OK, I have uploaded a new version of the map where I fixed a bug with the Terran comsat. I have played it severaltime againt the comp and it works well. |
| PsychoTEMPlar | | |
"LOL so LGI was wrong when he was spamming my one map!"
If he reached the sprite limit, it means Valks won't work at all on this map, nor will any other unit that uses sprites in it's attack. This is exactly what all map makers have feared when it came to sprites, and why no one has ever included waterfalls in their maps... Have you ever played BGH with 8 players? If enough players reach 200/200, you can't even build pylons anymore, because the game has reached it's limit (nor will you valk counter to Carriers work).
I havn't done any testing with this, but I will ask about it on SEN to get a more conclusive answer.
modified by PsychoTEMPlar |
| Lancet | | |
| PsychoTEMPlar, I have already answered this question above. Units that use sprites work OK in this map, why don't you give it a try? |
| PsychoTEMPlar | | |
| I don't really want to waste my time on this map getting both players to 200/200. I'm asking the question elsewhere, and the response wasn't exactly favourable to what you're saying. However, the site is having downtime right now, and I can't remember what exactly he said, so I'll have to wait awhile. |
| Excalibur | | |
As a SENner i can tell you whats up.
The current reccomendation for sprites is to keep them below 50. I count, and i did this quickly, 64 webs, and 6 swarms. Thats 70 sprites. Is it a bit much? Yes. Is it, on MOST plays of this map, going to affect gameplay? I would say most definately not. On occasion it might come into play on a long drawn out game full of macro.
This is a new concept, and i think that this is a bold and interesting map, implementing an idea that needs to be expanded up on. |
| Lancet | | |
PsychoTEMPlar, I usedthe cheat codes against a protoss comp to wall in and reach a control of 200 quickly. I made battlecruisers, valks, wraiths and science vessels. I allowed the computer to expand over the map and I regularly tested the units, they were OK. Also on Toss's part psyonic storm and corsair attack worked fine and they could still make pylons.
Excalibur, I don't know what a SENner is but thanks for your comment. Like I have stated in some of my posts above, I wanted to create a different type of battlefieldthat that would require a different approach when attacking and defending. From making the map and also from comments lostTampon made I gather that increasing the number of doodads decreases the number of sprites. So I could just eliminate some doodads to make 100% sure there are enough sprites to go around. |
| spinesheath | | |
| In case you mean "SENner" as being a member at staredit.net: SEN is not in the place to give recommendations for melee mapping... If any page, then bwmn here, but certainly not SEN. |
| Excalibur | | |
| I meant that sprites are normally used by UMS map makers. SEN is a place for UMS and Modding and i think that we would have a bit more information on SC's inner workings and limits than melee map makers, as we need to know them alot more readily then you do. Im not trying to belittle melee you understand, im just saying that UMS and Modding do indeed have to know the limits alot better due to whats being included. |
| Lancet | | |
OK, I have fixed the bug regarding the building of the extractor,assimilator/refinery and of the terran comsat, I expanded the ramps N/S in the corridors and I made sure that a lurker in the swarm closest to a mineral-only expo will only hit the first clump of minerals.
modified by Lancet
modified by Lancet |
| spinesheath | | |
Well, I am a UMS mapper myself. By far more than I am a melee mapper. And I am programming an editor, so I know those limits as well.
But for an UMS map you have to approach the sprite issue very differently, you can't give a recommendation for those. If the map is generally low on units, you can use many sprites, if the unit count is high, you obviously have to avoid using sprites. |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
| please explain arkanoid, I am really confused, that map uses tons of sprites and yet there are no sprite conflicts, perhaps the sprite limit in the maps set by blizzard is the max you can have without interfering? |
| Lancet | | |
| While I was making the map I got messages about doodads being matched to sprites. At one point I could not place more sprites but I got rid of some doodads and then I could place more. There seems to be an interplay between sprites and doodads. |
| Nightmarjoo | | |
| yeah I think it was spines who explained not long ago that doodads like trees use a sprite for the top of them, you'll find half-made doodads in the tile index in scmdraft, you can add the sprites if you want to them, but they are not there by default. |
| LGI | | |
You call that a map for EMOTY? You put in competition? You better pick the "Trash" competition for this one... Please spend more time in thinking before making a map... No concept, newb design...
1/10 |
| Lancet | | |
| Actually, this map is remarkable in many ways. Notice that the dwebs are sufficiently far appart from each other so as to allow microing of units around them, this stimulates a different form of gameplay. Also the gas in the nat plus main is not full so you WILL have to go to the center. No my friend, you may not like it, and that's fine but its not newb by any means, map and concept are cutting edge. |
| LGI | | |
They are UMS maps for that, trust me! I like your way of thinking by making the players play as you wish, i did the same at some of my maps before, but your idea for such game style is not for melee.
Anyway a wise man here at BWMN named StarParty, long ago said:
"A good map should be able to give a player the freedom to do whatever he wants with any style of gaming."
Forcing the gamer to play with a specific style isn't the path for a map to be played and liked by the community.
Thats why my friend, this map is not for a competition like "Map of the Year"! It's just not the Map of the Year! |
| uC.MorroW | | |
i hate maps like this, they ARE NOT BALANCED AND WILL NOT BE LIKED IN REAL GAMING WORLD.
make some better decoration too :o |
| Lancet | | |
Bollocks LGI, making a map where the player plays the map just promotes "more of the same". I am tired and bored with that. I make maps where the map plays the players, LOL! Maps that force you to play differently and challenge you to change. It may not be for a competition like MOTY but my point is it SHOULD be, and that is all that matters for me, LOL!
I do agree that it is a tougher sell though.
MorroW, how is it "unbalanced". I do agree it can use more deco and I may do that. |
| FateD | | |
| btw, did u test top left middle expo? im not sure, but i think 1 of the min wont be usable bc of the web infront of it :O |
| NastyMarine | | |
| I really like this layout. permission to pimp???????? |
| lancet | | |
| Nasty, be my guest, thanks for your interest. |
| ludamad | | |
| Maybe have an empty 'oasis' in the middle? Like take out a few Dwebs there, tho that might make a terran encampment there unstoppable. |
| FateD | | |
| lol i say u place units as in a chessbord and make it 8x8 in the middle of a map Xd |
(2)Caissa
-
Lancet vs 
Comp(1on1, 1.13)
