| Author |
Message |
|
Meltage
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown  Posted: Fri 2. Sep 2011, 11:59 |
|
Joined: Sat 28. May 2011, 19:05
Posts: 114
|
Taking this down from drop box to finish myself for motm9. As an extra challenge I will try to keep doodad count below 2k. 
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
Advertising
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri 2. Sep 2011, 11:59 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NullCurrent
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Fri 16. Sep 2011, 09:01 |
|
Joined: Wed 25. May 2011, 20:06
Posts: 94
|
|
Talked with iGrok a bit, and he is of the opinion that the nat is a bit too close to the backdoor ramp, making walling awkward without having to wall both of the ramps.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Meltage
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Fri 16. Sep 2011, 20:57 |
|
Joined: Sat 28. May 2011, 19:05
Posts: 114
|
|
How should it be then?
Ofc you have to wallin both ramps, or just FE wall-in from the main ramp. I orginially wanted to make the forward ramps towards the middle double and not 3x. I believe the two forward ramsp are more important to wall than the backdoor. Beacuse of the small area, the LoSB line and the low ground, the backdoor is easier to defend against. Or how woudl you wall?
Other issues MIGHT be:
- too open middle (the middle overall, not the exact middle I asume, this from Ben and motm judges through him)
- may be zerg favoured overall (easy to think so when comparing to shakuras, ofc, but only games can really tell, right?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NullCurrent
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Fri 16. Sep 2011, 21:45 |
|
Joined: Wed 25. May 2011, 20:06
Posts: 94
|
|
I think what iGrok meant was that you should move the nat a bit backwards so you can do a walloff from the main ramp without having to risk so much from an attack from the backdoor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Meltage
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Sun 18. Sep 2011, 11:30 |
|
Joined: Sat 28. May 2011, 19:05
Posts: 114
|
I don't understand. You can clearly walloff from the main ramp and have the nat backdoor on the outside.  Also, do you think I should make one of the forward nat ramps 2x isntead of 3x?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mereel
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Sun 18. Sep 2011, 14:49 |
|
 |
| Administrator |
 |
Joined: Wed 25. May 2011, 00:24
Posts: 186
|
|
dont take igrok feedback serious....pretty sure he is bronze or something
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Meltage
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Tue 20. Sep 2011, 12:33 |
|
Joined: Sat 28. May 2011, 19:05
Posts: 114
|
I havnt acted on iGroks concerns yet, but I thinkthey are Martin's too. I need more opinions on the matter. Monitor: Quote: The proportions on this map feel somewhat off to me, the main and natural are very small while the middle is gigantic. I think the middle should be slightly smaller and the main and natural should be enlarged. Maybe you could decrease the rush distance too, because right now its on the longer side and drops are somewhat difficult.
This is almost a Shakuras Plateau remake, with a few changes. Overall each change improves the map flow in my opinion, except the aggressive third is slightly too open. Adding extra paths in the north and south of the middle are nice to help the balance of ZvP (helping Zerg, where Protoss used to be overpowered). This crticism comes down to too open middle and too small nat. I need to know if these are pressing concerns that shoudl be fixed before NASL mini tournamnets or not. To me, the concerns seem minior to me and nothing "fixable" unless those proves to be issues in motm or the mini-tournaments. Do you concur?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mereel
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Tue 20. Sep 2011, 20:21 |
|
|
| Administrator |
|
Joined: Wed 25. May 2011, 00:24
Posts: 186
|
|
i would leave it as it is. dont be so worried
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Meltage
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Fri 23. Sep 2011, 11:56 |
|
Joined: Sat 28. May 2011, 19:05
Posts: 114
|
Quote: I think I agree that the mains should be extended into the air space somewhat. Mostly because I think the mains are small and have limited area to build in, though. The naturals have virtually no additional space for any buildings other than a wall-in, and the main is an awkward shape with a large perimeter relative to the area, so I feel it will be difficult to place a lot of buildings in the later stages of the game; in particular a lot of barracks. Although 28 CCs, the area in these mains can't be used very efficiently do to the shape. Gfire Quote: yes @ making those ramps smaller ( http://i.imgur.com/rdHZd.jpg) Barrin Thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dezi
|
Post subject: Re: Project: Korhal Overgrown Posted: Fri 23. Sep 2011, 14:30 |
|
Joined: Fri 3. Jun 2011, 23:23
Posts: 85
|
|
| |
|
|
|
