EPT[M] (2) Highest Authority - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
Ohdamn
Germany765 Posts
played some matches today and really liked it can't even think about any negative feedback ;D thumbs up | ||
|
SuperbeastAU
Australia12 Posts
 Also, the map is now published on EU thanks to Ongweldt, so feel free to give it a go! On September 06 2010 11:16 Ketara wrote: This map looks neat, it kind of reminds me of a slightly more open 2-player Metalopolis. Is there a reason why you don't have any brush on the map? Or is there brush that I just don't see. I agree with the post above that the third looks much less appealing than the high yield, as well. Hmm, not sure what you mean by no brush? :/ Like I said it's my first map so if I may well have missed something obvious :D On September 06 2010 13:07 Badred wrote: Beautiful map. The texturing and doodad work is impeccable. Edit: I guess my only comment about flow is that there's only one real route through the center to your enemy. This generally means that the majority of the gameplay will be at the natural of one player or the other, with very little maneuvering about the middle. Of course, this is an issue with Scrap station as well until one player or the other takes their third, so I don't think it's a huge deal. In most of my experimentation with map design I've found that maps with multiple routes to the enemy (think Heartbreak Ridge in BW) can produce much more exciting army movement and give players more to worry about (and also give spectators more to watch, for a professional map), compared to maps with a single path through the middle. Edit #2: Also, I'm not sure how often the shortcut path on this map will be used. Unlike Scrap Station, the shortcut doesn't seem to actually cut down on the ground distance very significantly. Yeah, I think you are fairly right with both points. Maybe expanding the high ground shortcut a bit into an actual expansion of some sort might counter both those points a bit (although currently there isn't really enough space between bases) On September 06 2010 13:35 EatThePath wrote: I am not convinced that the gold is too easy to take. And if its symmetrical, isn't that part of the map features? However, it'd be nice if there was tension between the gold and corner expos as a choice for 3rd. What if the center-facing ramp at the corner was narrower for easy walloff and forcefield? (I hesitate to say add rocks.) Or perhaps something like this? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://a.imageshack.us/img833/4817/highauthorityedit.jpg) Have a bottom walkway with a ramp coming up at either pink, or orange with a second narrow ramp. (Maybe an expo below center bottom grass platform, or two like you had is cool too.) This would get some action going on the far side of the map, and it would make the corner harder to surmount, and therefore more attractive to grab prior to gold. Anyway just some ideas, don't take me too seriously. I really like the map so it was worth drawing up some examples in paint! Hmm, I like the idea of the rear platform but I think that is just getting a bit too far away from the bases, and currently I don't really have the room on the edge of the map for it! Appreciate the ideas though! | ||
|
chuky500
France473 Posts
A suggestion would be to just have 1 xel naga tower and move it up on the cliff, remove the 2 rocks and put one rock where the top xel naga is, and give access by the ground to the island. Because in lower leagues when terran starts lifting his buildings and turtles in the island it's really annoying especially when you have to build a lot of air just to finish him. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
If it were me, and remember this is just me, I'd add destructible rocks to the gold expansions. They appear to be too easy to take as a third base right now, so I'd like it if the player had to invest time/army before taking it. Also, I'd widen the ramps in the back path to make it a more viable attack route. | ||
|
Merikh
United States918 Posts
Gold should be: Risky to take, hard to defend imo. | ||
| ||
