TCR Ice Wall

9495 posts

posted on August 31st, 2010, 10:24 pm

there's a lot of kill zones where turrets would be awesome in this map.

4 klinks could starbase those kill zones

4 borg could spam dodeca relays lol.

4 dominion could put out 12 perimeters

4 feds could... well they could win on any map without turrets

4 romulans could quit at the start.

i dont think i would enjoy playing on this map with so many places to turret wall.

posted on September 17th, 2010, 11:36 am

Maybe I'll make it so that there's only one way into enemy space. But the entrance will be configured so that turret-walling the entire entrance would be a waste of resources with the exception of a tachyon grid here and there.

posted on October 6th, 2010, 5:19 am

Very good starting concept, but this map isn't balanced at all. Keep this in mind when making maps:

-the difference between 1 moon pair and 2 moon pairs is HUGE
-the difference between 2 moon pairs and 3 moon pairs is big
-the difference between 3 and 4 is small
-after that the rest of the moons are almost worthless.

When you give each player 2 natural expansion pairs, they will never need to expand. If those expansions are behind a bottleneck, federation turret rush/E2 spam will win EVERY time.

I love the part where the expansions can fire at each other across the wall, but not all races' artillery is created equal. So this is what I suggest:

1. Remove the two "C" shapes from the middle, to make a big wide opening. Move the center pairs closer to each other.
2. Replace the rest of the middle wall with damage nebulas. It'll be a huge pain to get units to travel across the line, but if somebody really wants to they can get through.
2a. If you want, you could make the line large damage nebulas with small green nebulas in the center. This way the pathing is still hard but the ships don't take as much flak. Also prevents borg from having an advantage (due to few, powerful ships taking less damage on their way through)

(Optional) Consider removing the dilithium moon from each first expansion, and the tritanium moons from the second expansions. It might not need this, I dunno.

posted on October 6th, 2010, 11:36 am

In the previous version, the center wall was broken into two parts and you were able to enter enemy space using either the center break, or either of the side breaks. And the "C" shapes weren't there.

I'll move the center expansion pairs closer together. I'll also move the first expansion closer to the first expansion. But I don't like the idea of a nebula. However, since there is usually such an abundant supply of tritanium, I'll remove the tritanium moon from the first expansion and the center expansion.

posted on October 6th, 2010, 4:04 pm

Actually how big IS the middle bottleneck? I felt guilty about judging it without downloading it so I tried, and the download link is down.

I would caution you against putting more of one type of moon than the other, but since the second expansion's di moons are more vulnerable than their tri moons it should be okay.

Normally you want AT LEAST 1.5-2 screen widths of opening between two sides to prevent turret rushing, with 4v4 it might be okay simply because the chances of one team all being feds and coordinating are low.

I can't tell from the minimap if the center has enough open space for big fleets to fight properly, I'll shut my mouth about it until I have the map and can look at it ingame X)

Oh, and you should check out my map Xasica Prime and tell me what you think

posted on October 6th, 2010, 4:57 pm

Last edited by TChapman500 on October 6th, 2010, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I assume you have your thing on astrometrics. I'm checking it out now.

UPDATE:

Um, what page are your maps on?

END UPDATE!

UPDATE 2:

Nevermind, I found it.

END UPDATE 2!

For that center space, you can easily fit 3, maybe 4 full fleets of ships in there and use them in constant with your constructors to build a virtually impassible wall of turrets. The game I was in didn't last that long. Something about all players crashing simultaneously.

By the way, I think that the asteroid ODF files could use some modifications in terms of the size of the map icons. They never scale with the map, which is probably why it seems so small. I think it's 25x25.

posted on October 6th, 2010, 10:28 pm

...astrometrics? I have no clue what that is. Probably should though.

posted on October 6th, 2010, 10:31 pm

I'll make it easier for people to find your maps. Also, once my security update is complete on my site, I'm going to try to modify the user control panel to allow map hosting and downloading just by viewing the user profile.

086gf

858 posts

posted on October 8th, 2010, 3:17 am

Tryptic wrote:...astrometrics? I have no clue what that is. Probably should though.

Yes, you should. All of the best maps are located there. [url=http://phoenix-d.webs.com/ ]Webs - Free website, free hosting, free webpage - Make a web site with photo albums, blogs, videos, forums and more![/url] :thumbsup:

posted on October 8th, 2010, 5:21 am

"Page not found"