Firebreak vBeta3 map

sort
Aquanim 4 years ago Added some geos, modified river texture and added some reeds. +3 / -0
raaar 4 years ago The map looks nice. The idea of burned side vs green side separated by a river is good too. some criticism: - there only seems to be one real starting location on each hill, the other possibilities don't leave much room to build a base. There's a lack of metal spots behind each of the main land masses and I think there's something wrong about how the metal spots are spread out. Not sure what. - the area of engagement in the middle is a bit bland and too exposed. It could be better if it had two tall and steep rock formations near the middle of the river that would act as cover for units - the metal spot textures are overused, more varied and natural looking ones might fit the visual style of the map better - the metal and geo spots are not visible on the minimap - the features lack a proper name/description - the energy values on features seem quite low. I think in the past ZK had a multiplier which made the energy values of features on maps compatible with both ZK and other TA-like springRTS games (which have the energy values multiplied by 10). Did that change? +0 / -0
Aquanim 4 years ago (edited 4 years ago) I didn't see the above post before making the next version unfortunately. The feature names have been fixed though. The feature reclaim values are as I intended them; I felt like I needed to stick a bunch of features on the map to make the aesthetics work but wasn't looking to make White Rabbit Mk2 in terms of how they affect gameplay. (I believe something did change recently about how ZK handles reclaim values on features though.) After some playtesting I might think about moving the mex around, at which point I could shuffle the mex features around also. I like the readability of the round ones (especially on a map as visually noisy as this) but they are a bit monotonous. In the new version (at any rate) mex/geos are visible on the minimap when economy view is enabled; I don't know how strongly I feel about making them visible at all when economy view is disabled. The sparsity of metal spots at the "back" of each team's main landmass is intentional also; due to the deep water (which allows a shipfac to be made) putting mex there which would be vulnerable to hover/amph raids would further skew this map towards those factories. My hope is that with the metal distributed as it is, land factories are at least playable. +0 / -0
nop 4 years ago Since there's been some changes and feedback on start boxes: I think making the startboxes non-rectangular matching the entire plateau would be ideal for teams. When the startbox is rectangular, it increases rush potential across the river to the riverside dual-mex spot. When the startbox is rectangular and only the distant half (like in this version) it increases rush potential across the river and reduces ability to defend the rush at the same time. You can start closer to opponent's spot than your own (at least it looks that way to my eyeballs). You get a big lead on the adjacent porc hill. If you want aggressive across-the-river rushes to be so good they're almost mandatory, then it's spot on. The changes from last version suggest that's the direction you're tuning it. Otherwise if the starbox matches the plateau you still get a good lead on the porc hill across the river, especially if you plop a factory with units that can cross the river quickly. +0 / -0
Aquanim 4 years ago I certainly don't want it to be mandatory for the teams to expand on their own landmass and then fight with the river in the middle. Possibly I have pushed too far in that direction. That is another thing I might change after some playtesting. +0 / -0
nop 4 years ago Some observations after watching replays of team games at high speed: When there is opening expansion across the river, the winning team is invariably the one that commits the most to expanding across the river. Almost nothing moves through the center of the map. Almost everything moves through the north and south. There's nothing valuable in the line from startbox to startbox, so there's no reason to porc it. You don't have much access to raid expansions through it. The only reasons to go there are cloaky plays, shifting to the other polar front (which is distant and only gunships/raiders have been observed doing this), or delivering coup de grace to main base. Putting some raidable objective on the central shore might increase activity in the center, if that's desired. In this version you have to cross a reinforcement line to get to the central mex and geo. +0 / -0
Aquanim 4 years ago Having slept on this I have made another new version with adjusted startboxes and mex features, and added a new pair of mexes on the coasts near the middle of the map. At the moment I've added those mexes for all game sizes but I'm not sure that they will stay for 1v1. Need to see some 1v1 games to decide. +0 / -0
nop 4 years ago Here's the ship plop you were looking for: B868553 8 on Firebreak vBeta3 It's really very challenging, the way the river is laid out you have to choose early which fork to follow. But Envoy is op. +0 / -0
Ontheheavens 4 years ago (edited 4 years ago) I spectated that game as well. My take on it is your opponents were potatoes as ships seem to be VERY easily counterable on those forks, because there's zero maneuverability. I dunno, just use cloaked scallobsters and buous? Generally here ships seem strictly worse choice compared to amphibs/hovers as their fac is too far away from frontline and cant easily reinforce but very susceptible to back raids... also tactical situation at start very encourages rush. +0 / -1
Aquanim 4 years ago (edited 4 years ago) I don't think I would choose to plop ships if my team did not already have a hover or amph factory already (preferably both) but if the team has enough people on it I suspect it's at least mildly viable in a supporting role. New version here: http://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/58677 +0 / -0

Firebreak vBeta3

PLAY ON THIS MAP

Last battles