| Blogs > KinosJourney2 |
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
 + Show Spoiler [Picture] + ![[image loading]](http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt55/KinosJourney/Destination21n.jpg) Basically i removed the tight middle from the original and made it a bit more open, i think it will be fun to play on. Also the desert tileset sucks so im aware of the deco being bad but i just suck at this tileset If you want to download it, you can do it [url blocked] UPDATE: Added bridges to middle and a few doodads.    | ||
|
Elaeli
Germany62 Posts
| ||
|
YoureFired
United States822 Posts
On April 25 2010 05:53 Elaeli wrote: The center bridges were the whole point of Destination .. Yeah sorry, I think that the bridges would make SC2 even more interesting (due to much more mobile armies) and would not lead to the mass camping strategies of BW Still, nice map. 4/5 | ||
|
Axonn
Croatia287 Posts
 | ||
|
Fogul
United Kingdom179 Posts
| ||
|
Marradron
Netherlands1586 Posts
| ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
On April 25 2010 05:56 YoureFired wrote: Yeah sorry, I think that the bridges would make SC2 even more interesting (due to much more mobile armies) and would not lead to the mass camping strategies of BW Still, nice map. 4/5 No, really. The tight places will really make the map imba. Forcefields will be ridiculously strong if you can make your opponent engage you by a bridge. I believe the only way to counter forcefields is to make the maps bigger/less narrow  On April 25 2010 05:58 Marradron wrote: It seems also the ramps to the 3 and 9 oclock expansions are too wide compared to original. Harder to hold like that I guess they are pretty big, i'll make the minerals there high yield to make it more worth defending. | ||
|
Exteray
United States1094 Posts
has potential 5/5 | ||
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
| ||
|
Polar_Nada
United States1548 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11554 Posts
| ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
In original Destination, the terrain and bridges in the middle not only make middle areas more defensible, and thus worth defending, they maintain multiple avenues, which results in a wider, more defined range of army movement options. If you look at Nightmarjoo's map making guide (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95409) he discusses linearity and pathing and how they relate to the number of viable paths. The original Destination had quite the bevy of viable paths compared to this incarnation. Now I will admit that part of the huge difference between BW and SC2 is the effect of terrain, not just because of the difference in how high ground works, but also because of how the match-ups in general work. Therefore old wisdom from BW mapping may apply differently or not at all. I'm also personally annoyed that one reason you cite for avoiding "tight" terrain is one ability's supposed imbalance that doesn't even have a consensus around it. Anyways good luck with your future mapping endeavors. | ||
|
Snausages
United States529 Posts
| ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
On April 25 2010 06:28 EchOne wrote: I'm not really digging the whole open terrain theme in this version. If Protoss wants to maximize force field effect he will just fight along the cliffs and expos along the sides of the map. He can bust Colossus antics there too, so literally the only confrontations he will engage in will be at his bases or yours. In original Destination, the terrain and bridges in the middle not only make middle areas more defensible, and thus worth defending, they maintain multiple avenues, which results in a wider, more defined range of army movement options. If you look at Nightmarjoo's map making guide (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95409) he discusses linearity and pathing and how they relate to the number of viable paths. The original Destination had quite the bevy of viable paths compared to this incarnation. Now I will admit that part of the huge difference between BW and SC2 is the effect of terrain, not just because of the difference in how high ground works, but also because of how the match-ups in general work. Therefore old wisdom from BW mapping may apply differently or not at all. I'm also personally annoyed that one reason you cite for avoiding "tight" terrain is one ability's supposed imbalance that doesn't even have a consensus around it. Anyways good luck with your future mapping endeavors. Thanks alot, well. I really disliked the original Destination cause of the narrow bridges. I'd get owned when people abused the tight bridges and with the Forcefield being soo annoying in SC1 im experimenting with wider middles to make Forcefields a bit weaker. If you look at Lost Temple for an example; basically you can easily seal off half the enemies army easily which really makes protoss very strong. | ||
|
Cube
Canada777 Posts
| ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
On April 25 2010 06:56 Cube wrote: instead of bridges in the middle, you could just throw down some terrain, like a divider or a platform or something, it looks so barren... Im thinking right now, i will come up with something eventually | ||
|
sLiniss
United States849 Posts
People have criticized enough. I just want to say great job! The map looks well constructed | ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
On April 25 2010 07:05 sLiniss wrote: Yeayea, bridges, blahblahblah. People have criticized enough. I just want to say great job! The map looks well constructed Thanks I MIGHT implement the bridges but then i'll make them a bit broader. I'll experiment with it | ||
|
Snausages
United States529 Posts
 | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
|
|
|
EPT
