Since you stated players said the map is too narrow I kind of started to look for spots to produce some space. that means I am rather sensitive for looking for such areas. especially because playing T myself I always ask myself if each and every ramp should not be a litle bit wider.
Meltage wrote:
Please be more specific. Which ramps and why?
In my opinion the ramps at the 3 and 9 oclock expansion are too narrow. It looks like a double wide ramp which is quite small for something on highground. Depending on race it could be really hard to defend or attack. This would be easy to change and test and fix if needed.
also you could add some space on the highround (e.g. one to three more small grid spaces towards the closer base) to allow adding some units up there and give them some space to move in or out.
Meltage wrote:
The base effectively creates two paths to the nat and the third. Yes, you'll probably attack from that direction, what is the problem with that?
the problem I see - and players may have 'felt' - that the idea to have an additional attacking patzh i good, but the execution is not (imho), because the path into the third (on the long way through the fourth) can be controlled and countered from pretty much the same position as an attack through the main path. It might work very well to sneek a few units in, but you would not use it for any bigger armies. T would be stretched out and Z would not want to hrough the small entries/exit between wall structe at fourth and map's border at all, because Z would have to be afraid to me smashed there. Most playes should scout the area at fourth. I think the path is great for quick attacks against nat or third, but I am not sure if it is worth it, because both pathes become quite narrow.
Meltage wrote:
The main concept here was to make every base unique.
something very good I think. But: I think it could be designed in a more simple way. Look at the lava behind the high yield: the wall structure should be the counterpart in black!
now it is a bit cluttered. use strong shapes.
Meltage wrote:
Another rotational base would be closer to the third, siegable from the high ground fifth and not so different from the other bases (note that the base in its current position is not siegable from the fifth, nor CC or minerals). Since its so close ot the other bases I wanted to make it harder to defend. There is a gap in the wall, allowing workers in, lings by, or as a small harrasment backdoor.
maybe try to make structure a bit too short to cover all minerals and turn 90° clockwise.
though I like the idea with the small hole.
gain: more space for extra path guaranteed.
Meltage wrote:
I'd like to hear more opinions on this matter.
me too. There is so much to learn when trying to explain one's concept respectivly one's understanding of a design descision
Meltage wrote:
Please be more specific. The overall colors, the unusual mix of textures, some specific textures? What would you change and why?
I do not like the way the main is colored. On the one hand it is a man made structure half way destroyed, but the textures there are a bit washed out as if they cannot decide if they want to be natural or man-made. On the other hand the black high-tech hex floortiles are in rather strong contrast to a general 'mish-mach' of blending textures, because of there strong outlines (hex). You might weant to try a man made texture that blends better like some greyish tiles of the korhal or tryador tileset or something similar. the natural cliffs texturing could need more contrast, e.g. some more rocky textures to complimant the flat sand textures and small details structural textures like small red rocks. this could help to define more shape and contrast, especially around the borders of cliffs.
it is not that i do not like the textures. the direction is great, but it needs more definition.
