|
|
|
Look at the Map Analyzer picture of Hanging Gardens..
+ Show Spoiler +It looks like a Swastika o_o
The maps looks like alot of fun to play, though most of them are unimaginative and have the same layout.
|
On October 05 2010 19:48 KinosJourney2 wrote:Look at the Map Analyzer picture of Hanging Gardens.. + Show Spoiler +It looks like a Swastika o_o The maps looks like alot of fun to play, though most of them are unimaginative and have the same layout.
no it doesn't
OMG THOUGH:
You should call it See No Evil, or Blind Monkey Valley!
|
@KinosJourney2, I see it, but I don't think it will stand out as much once the map is textured. How do any of them have the same layout?
@sob3k, LOL. I definitely see the monkey.
|
|
|
Even paths usually is very annoying in a map, but I think you pulled it off well in Crimson Crater. But the 4th base seems too far away from everything (and is too spacious). I like the center/side dynamics of the map. The expo layout is almost good, but the 4th is too far for sure, and the third might be too far from the nat as well.
I commented on urban jungle in its own thread already, and the other completed maps are kind of yucky. I've nothing nice to say about them ._>
|
@Nightmarjoo: I don't feel like every expansion needs to be close, easy to take and easy to defend. Feel free to say things that aren't nice about my maps, it's the only way I can improve.
|
these maps all seem very big (maybe its just me?)
|
On October 12 2010 03:38 StuBob wrote:
these maps all seem very big (maybe its just me?)
It's not just you. Though Orbital Decay, which was the first map I created, is 140x140; the same size as Metalopolis. And I don't think Crimson Crater is very big. The main-to-main distance on Crimson Crater is 155, compared to Xel'Naga Caverns which is 143 and Scrap Station which is 160.
I thought there used to be a camp of people that kept saying, "Blizzard maps are too small. Brood War maps were bigger. Make bigger maps." But I guess that's not the case anymore. Also, I think people only notice the size when you post analyzer pictures. Without them, it's a little harder to tell. With the next few maps I'm working on, I'm going back to Blizzard sized maps... or I'll stop posting analyzer pictures. 
|
Updated OP with more WIP.
|
Rendezvous looks to me like the most promising WIP here, and if completed, probably will be one of your best maps. It is really nice looking and clearly balanced, so finish that one first.
Mount Ida looks nice as well, but finish Rendezvous first.
|
yeah, Rendezvous looks cool. But maybe you could turn those "gaps" outside of the nat and infront of the third into unwalkable cliffs. Would be a nice place to park an overlord (or 2).
|
On October 14 2010 03:56 burningDog wrote:
yeah, Rendezvous looks cool. But maybe you could turn those "gaps" outside of the nat and infront of the third into unwalkable cliffs. Would be a nice place to park an overlord (or 2).
That's a good idea. I'll do that.
|
On October 14 2010 03:56 burningDog wrote:
...Would be a nice place to park an overlord (or 2).
Or three 
|
Your maps look good; I'll look for them on the battlenet  !
|
Updated with Rendezvous as a Completed Map.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Easily your best work. Looking forward to your next map
|
dezi, now I feel like my next map has to be great. You're putting too much pressure on me!
|
|
|
Rendezvous looks like a really neat and balanced map, definitely going to play a few games on it tonight. Keep up the good work.
|
Thanks G_Wen. If you play on Rendezvous I'd love to get the replays.
|
I think I'll just keep adding Works In Progress to the OP until someone says they like one of them.
Check out Wretched Hive.
|
Lately I've been attempting to do more non-square maps.
Added Phalanx to Work in Progress section of OP.
|
|
|
After posting 5 layout designs over the last few days, I thought I'd get a comment on one of them by now. Do they all suck? Tell me what I'm doing wrong here.
With Dune Sea, Wretched Hive and Phalanx, I experimented with doing non-square maps (meaning playable width is not equal to playable height). I've been tending towards equal width/height maps until now.
I've also been trying to play around with chokes and changing cliff height and seeing how they affect attack paths. I'm finding it very interesting and I'm liking the way the layouts turned out. Though, the lack of feedback makes me feel I'm going in the wrong direction.
|
I love all of your WIPs, there are so creative!
One thing about Phalanx is its XWT placement. They allow for the high-yield expansions to be defended relatively easy in their current position.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I like Mount Ida and Phalanx. They offer a good amount of attack paths and expansion route. I would like to see those finished. The other maps all have minor problems (only 1 real path or an not that nice layout).
//edit
Overall all your new designs look way way way better then your first attempts :D
|
*phew* Thank you. I was worried there for a while.
I'll probably work on Phalanx tonight then.
|
|
|
Wow there's a lot of great stuff coming here. Your WIP maps look very interesting. If your work on details and looks is as good as the designing, those are gonna be awesome.
|
Providence and Dunde Sea would be better if the pathes towards center would give more space
i'd test out how Dune Sea works with a connection in the north and south behind the watchtowers. as the space is not use very effective I also suggest to compress the map just a little bit and move the gold expansions a few units towards outer edge and put small holes to give them more security. another problem I see at the choke into Nat, directly behind the choke are two ramps, it is just very difficult to move a bigger force towards the nat.
conclusion: interesting ideas, quite some problems
|
On October 26 2010 16:22 Samro225am wrote:Providence and Dunde Sea would be better if the pathes towards center would give more space i'd test out how Dune Sea works with a connection in the north and south behind the watchtowers. as the space is not use very effective I also suggest to compress the map just a little bit and move the gold expansions a few units towards outer edge and put small holes to give them more security. another problem I see at the choke into Nat, directly behind the choke are two ramps, it is just very difficult to move a bigger force towards the nat. conclusion: interesting ideas, quite some problems
What you're saying is exactly correct and this is what I've been trying to experiment with. The idea behind Providence and Dune Sea was that the short attack paths were direct, but they are much tighter. They would serve well in the early game, but once a large army moves onto the field, the routes on the sides would provide more room to maneuver. I was trying to position the expansions so that an army should position itself on the sides and use the center attack path less. If the experiment doesn't work then at least I know more for trying.
Also, with Dune Sea, the nat-to-nat distance feels short so I felt the chokes into them should be small. They can be widened if you feel that they are too tight.
|
Updated OP with another WIP: Perdition.
My first attempt at a 2 player reflection symmetric map design. And for some reason the editor doesn't like taking pictures on Char. Anyway, tell me what you think.
Also, made a change to the layout of Providence.
I'm having difficulty finding the time and motivation to actually finish a map.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Looks like your take on scrap station (and actually a good one). I've the same problem finishing a map currently. Got to much ideas and lately often end up making them to big.
|
On November 03 2010 17:48 dezi wrote:
Looks like your take on scrap station (and actually a good one). I've the same problem finishing a map currently. Got to much ideas and lately often end up making them to big.
I find it difficult to do a 2 player reflection symmetric map with a decent expansion pattern and useful attack paths that doesn't turn out like Scrap Station. I tried quite a few designs before settling on this one. I definitely like rotationally symmetric 2 player maps more.
If you're making maps that are too big, then I recommend just restricting yourself. When you create the map, make it around 124x124 (Playable) and force yourself to work within those bounds.
On a side note, I'm thinking about trying to make a dedicated 2v2 map. There seems to be a void in that area of map design. Though, there are also fewer people who seem to know what makes a 2v2 map better or worse.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
That's what i did with a map lately (restricted myself). But i don't want to post it right now ^^
|
On November 04 2010 04:47 dezi wrote:
That's what i did with a map lately (restricted myself). But i don't want to post it right now ^^
I hope you post it soon!
|
Mount Ida and Providence! My head is spinning with ideas but they won't be pinned down. Are these awaiting polishing or do you have large layout changes in mind?
|
On November 09 2010 08:13 EatThePath wrote:
Mount Ida and Providence! My head is spinning with ideas but they won't be pinned down. Are these awaiting polishing or do you have large layout changes in mind?
Do you like Mount Ida and Providence? Are they filling your head with ideas or do you have ideas for them? I don't think the layouts will change much unless you point out something to make them better. I've done some finishing work on Providence and Mount Ida, but they aren't complete yet. I usually work on several things at once. So I'll do a little work on one map, then switch to another, and go back and forth a lot.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 09 2010 11:20 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 08:13 EatThePath wrote:
Mount Ida and Providence! My head is spinning with ideas but they won't be pinned down. Are these awaiting polishing or do you have large layout changes in mind? Do you like Mount Ida and Providence? Are they filling your head with ideas or do you have ideas for them? I don't think the layouts will change much unless you point out something to make them better. I've done some finishing work on Providence and Mount Ida, but they aren't complete yet. I usually work on several things at once. So I'll do a little work on one map, then switch to another, and go back and forth a lot.
Yeah, I'm the same way. And I haven't finished anything yet.
I really like Mount Ida and Providence intrigues me. I was wondering how open to changes you are. I was toying with ideas for both but I'm not sure what needs improving. Providence seems to have a lot of space that you could call "wasted" as people like to say, but I also really like every individual spot on the map, and the way they work together. Mount Ida just looks really neat; the flow is familiar but unique. I was trying to think of a way to add an "automatic" third base without cramming things or having it too far from opponent. Figured I would send some encouragement after the ambiguous criticism over Perdition.
|
Cool maps! I like how most of them are structured and they look balanced for the most part. Well done.
|
So many maps to test and so little time hehe. I haven't had the change to play SC2 for the past few weeks and your map thread has just... exploded! Hehe.
I've played Orbital Decay before, think it might have been your first map here on TL!? Anyways, Rendezvous and Urban Jungle looks nice. Keep up the work!
|
On November 09 2010 13:10 EatThePath wrote:Yeah, I'm the same way. And I haven't finished anything yet. I really like Mount Ida and Providence intrigues me. I was wondering how open to changes you are. I was toying with ideas for both but I'm not sure what needs improving. Providence seems to have a lot of space that you could call "wasted" as people like to say, but I also really like every individual spot on the map, and the way they work together. Mount Ida just looks really neat; the flow is familiar but unique. I was trying to think of a way to add an "automatic" third base without cramming things or having it too far from opponent. Figured I would send some encouragement after the ambiguous criticism over Perdition.
If you have any suggestions or ideas for my maps I would love to hear them. For Providence I think every spot is used but it probably looks quite bare without doodads or textures. For Mount Ida do you mean a third that is alternate to the high ground one blocked by rocks?
On November 09 2010 18:03 lovablemikey wrote:
Cool maps! I like how most of them are structured and they look balanced for the most part. Well done.
Thanks for the comments!
On November 10 2010 01:08 Ongweldt wrote:
So many maps to test and so little time hehe. I haven't had the change to play SC2 for the past few weeks and your map thread has just... exploded! Hehe.
I've played Orbital Decay before, think it might have been your first map here on TL!? Anyways, Rendezvous and Urban Jungle looks nice. Keep up the work!
If you play one of the maps, I'd love to see the replay. Orbital Decay was my first map. I really like Rendezvous, but I think Urban Jungle looks nice, but might be too big.
|
Updated OP. Moved Perdition to Complete maps. Added Dissension to WIP. I'm having trouble with it.
|
On November 11 2010 17:50 BoomStevo wrote:
Updated OP. Moved Perdition to Complete maps. Added Dissension to WIP. I'm having trouble with it.
I think the Nat is hard to control. it is small + two short chockes.
another thing that bothers be is the narrow space between the high yield highrounds. it can easily be sieged and when movng towards the enemy you have to move through that small joint or via the highground. therefore the control of the highground is very important. which is good, but you might want to try making the gold a bit smaller and enlarge the "gate" in between he two gold bases.
I also think that fourth is quite big. probably the map could be smaller overall and mre compressed.
watchtower placement makes sense.
|
On October 06 2010 02:49 BoomStevo wrote:
@KinosJourney2, I see it, but I don't think it will stand out as much once the map is textured. How do any of them have the same layout?
@sob3k, LOL. I definitely see the monkey.
What i mean't with same layout is that it's a highground main, a natural then rest of the map just looks nonimaginative. I want more crazy maps that uses experimental concepts and tries new things
|
On November 11 2010 18:49 Samro225am wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 17:50 BoomStevo wrote:
Updated OP. Moved Perdition to Complete maps. Added Dissension to WIP. I'm having trouble with it.
I think the Nat is hard to control. it is small + two short chockes. another thing that bothers be is the narrow space between the high yield highrounds. it can easily be sieged and when movng towards the enemy you have to move through that small joint or via the highground. therefore the control of the highground is very important. which is good, but you might want to try making the gold a bit smaller and enlarge the "gate" in between he two gold bases. I also think that fourth is quite big. probably the map could be smaller overall and mre compressed. watchtower placement makes sense.
This pretty much covers it. You could go about resolving these issues various ways, I think it will require experimentation. For the natural, assuming it gets a little more space, what if you enlarge the hole in front? Extend it in a line towards the fourth. This makes switching attack angles much slower, and gives some more direction to the flow, while removing some open space.
edit: Btw, can you turn on a tower from the high ground? They are right up against the cliff, it looks like you could get it from the top.
|
Yeah, I'd been having issues with Dissension. I almost just threw it out, but I decided instead to throw it in the thread and see if you guys had any bright ideas or maybe even liked it. And you seem to have noticed the problems I was having.
The natural has gone through a few iterations and I decided to try out a double choke. There were a couple reasons for it, mainly I wanted the choke to be on the side of the main cliff but I also wanted it to be not as easily defendable. I felt that the 3rd to 4th to gold might be too easy to defend, so I wanted the natural to be an easy target once your army is defending the 4th.
I also felt that the cliff which the gold is on was too big. That's why I had been messing around with it's placement and the size of the 4th (as you can see from 0.1 to 0.2). It's also the reason why I did the double ramp on one side and a hold between them. I feel like widening the center would displace the ramps too far and make them less usable as an attack path, since the center would become more favorable. And I also liked the watchtower placement.
I don't think you can activate the watchtower from the high ground.
On November 11 2010 20:00 KinosJourney2 wrote:What i mean't with same layout is that it's a highground main, a natural then rest of the map just looks nonimaginative. I want more crazy maps that uses experimental concepts and tries new things
I think making non-high ground mains without naturals would probably upset the balance way too much. Your definition of experimental and mine are different. I like to experiment with the way space is used to change flow and offer strategic points while playing the game the way it was intended to be played. Whereas I guess you're asking for maps that change the way the game is played. I'd rather not add gimmicks to a map just for the sake of change.
|
Added Utopia to the WIP section of the OP. Tell me what you think. I'm still trying to figure out a way to do an interesting rotationally symmetric 4-player map.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
|
On November 14 2010 19:54 dezi wrote:
Seems to be very big?
My first reaction to that statement is I hate you. But since I don't actually hate you I'll try to explain. The "close" spawn distance according to map analyzer is about 150 for main-to-main and 122 for nat-to-nat. The cross spawn distance is 183 main-to-main and 151 nat-to-nat. Those are not extreme distances.
The map is 156x156 playable. This is as low as I could get a map with this style of rotationally symmetric expansion pattern to work. I tried smaller but I was unable to fit this number of expansions in without there being some issues. As for the expansion pattern, I feel like there are only two successful expansion patterns on a rotationally symmetric map that I have seen. First there is the Fighting Spirit style where the third expansions are simply between each main/nat area. The other is what I am attempting to accomplish which is going out from the nat are a separate third for each direction you would want to expand. Meaning there are two expansions between each main/nat area. This, of course, means that the map will be larger and this is my attempt to make it as small as possible.
Otherwise, the golds were an afterthought and the center is my attempt at something interesting with the space provided.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Just judging by the pic this was my first impression :p
|
@utopia. i think it could be more compressed an gold looks really hard to hold. still would love to play it. looks really interesting with these wide ramps.
|
@utopia. i think it could be more compresse. gold looks really hard to hold. still would love to play it. looks really interesting with these wide ramps.
having alternating thirds makes sense to get rid of the typical 4player rotatonal map problem of exoandng towards opponent, while he is expending away.
did something similar in my map no.5 that is 168x168 and as you pointed out it is compressable to 156 - probably. it is hard to make it 144 when you want to have two third and one fourth expansion per player.
|
On November 15 2010 00:21 Samro225am wrote:
@utopia. i think it could be more compresse. gold looks really hard to hold. still would love to play it. looks really interesting with these wide ramps.
having alternating thirds makes sense to get rid of the typical 4player rotatonal map problem of exoandng towards opponent, while he is expending away.
did something similar in my map no.5 that is 168x168 and as you pointed out it is compressable to 156 - probably. it is hard to make it 144 when you want to have two third and one fourth expansion per player.
I don't think it could be compressed any more. Each expansion is actually about a siege tank range apart. So any more compressed and siege tanks can start hitting things from places I don't want them to. I agree that the golds will be difficult to hold. This was intentional, but I'll probably remove the rocks that make them more restricted.
|
Updated OP with an overview of Utopia with a tiny bit of texture work and rocks on golds removed. Also added an image of the progress I've made on Phalanx. Found a direction for the aesthetics. Pretty rough right now.
Comments on layout appreciated before I get too far into the doodading. Any thoughts on the aesthetic direction for either map?
|
Updated OP:
- Moved Phalanx to Completed Maps
- Added Dauntless to Works in Progress
|
|
|
Thanks for the encouragement, Barrin.
I've been working on Providence on and off for a while. I have not decided on a good aesthetic direction for it yet. Once I can see a clear picture of what I want it to look like, the rest of the detailing work usually falls into place for me. Why do you think the space between the natural and third should be removed? In the current version (not pictured) there are actually LoS blockers at the entrance to that area.
|
|
|
You picked the correct name for Utopia, so many bases. I think you've succeeded with a reasonable equivalence for close spawns; I really like how the rocks work to the righthand 3rd for the player who is anticlockwise. The center high ground might be improved upon, but I'm not sure how. I like it now anyway, really encourages holding the middle, like some of the 3player BW maps.
Dauntless looks... intense. It's so close once both rocks are down. If it were me, I would make it a stack of 3, or something like that, so breaking the rocks is high reward, but difficult. Then it's something worth contesting, not a looming inevitability.
I have an idea for Providence aesthetics, just popped into my head while I was looking at it again. The low ground areas are marshy grass, like a wetlands. Maybe very sparsely scattered trees or LOS bushes, and lots of interconnected ponds, possibly with no building allowed in part or totally. The center area is rocky, the water ended up carving out the softer low lands. The bases have a castle sort of feel (not literally, just giving that impression). Like Scotland meets Montana Rockies.
That's all, like the new stuff.
|
EatThePath, you seem to have nailed my intentions for Utopia. I wanted the center to be important even if the players are not spawning in cross positions. I'm unsure how I would improve upon it. I wanted it to be open so that battles could occur there. It was kind of boring while I was designing it, but when I extended those little high ground peninsulas toward the clockwise thirds, it made the center high ground a very dangerous and important space for attack and defense respectively.
Intense... indeed. That's why I named it Dauntless. It is the smallest map I've made at 116x116 playable area. I was experimenting with an easy to take but difficult to defend back door expansion. I also noticed how this unfortunately creates a very short attack distance once the rocks are opened up. I tried to make the rocks easier to defend in order to delay their destruction as much as possible. The main cliff overlooks the rock and there are LoS blockers just outside of the rocks. I think adding more rocks may be a good idea. I will see how that works.
As for Providence, here is how it currently looks:
+ Show Spoiler [Providence] +
|
Erebus now in completed section.
|
Check out my new work in progress: Harvest
|
@Harvest: Very cool, I definitely like the idea of the layout, pushing that expand toward opponent style. The bit around the watchtowers is clever, kudos there. The corner bases are problematic for me. All the individual pieces make sense taken separately, but the whole thing looks awkward. I think this is a situation where you need to identify something to cut, achieve more through simplicity. To me, the cliff for drops doesn't seem central to what you're doing here, even though it's a natural addition once you put the rocks there to make the gold a little safer. If you remove it, you can take away the rocks, and reformat that high ground passage to the corner. I might even try making it a low ground passage to corner, so that gold harass isn't automatic. This changes the lategame dynamic though.
Reexamining things, I realize I might be reading the flow wrong. I play protoss so I would naturally expand anticlockwise except for PvP I might go for the corner as 3rd.
The open expanse of crops is making me feel agorophobic. My first thought is to shave off some of the corner of the main and put a hole or mesa in the middle of it. This highlights the breathing room of the center ditch more. I really like the dynamic at 4 bases btw, where the action shifts from north-south to east-west.
I hope this isn't too much feedback. Your designs are very deep, so I am compelled to dissect at length.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D
|
The problem with Harvest is the same problem that Jungle Basin has. Zerg is screwed when it comes to a third. The listed third has its mineral line very close to the ramp, which is close to the gold expo, but the third is very far away from you main/nat area, so defending both places is extremely difficult. Expanding clockwise is slightly better, but will come under a lot of pressure and is also quite far away.
I do like the open half of the natural and how it flows into the center, and I like how risky the golds are to take. The nat-tanking area is interesting, and i'm not sure how that would work out - it could be just fine, and an elegant solution to droppable nats.
|
On December 01 2010 18:27 dezi wrote:
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D
I don't have the info with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the playable size is 116x132, the main-to-main distances is a little over 150 and the nat-to-nat distances is about 125.
@EatThePath & iGrok:
I will attempt to explain my thinking for some of my decisions for Harvest. I wanted both the counterclockwise and clockwise expansions to be viable choices for a third base. Originally the ramps to the counterclockwise base were much wider and I reduced them for fear of it being to difficult to defend. Based on your comments, I may reduce them further.
I took a lot of time tweaking and changing the nat-cliff-to-corner-expansion path. From a zerg perspective, I thought that the best course of action would be to destroy to rocks leading to their natural cliff immediately in order to protect their natural. This would then open up the corner expansion to be taken as a third. I believe that the attack distances to the corner base is much further and would be a good choice as for a third as zerg. This would also mean you would control the high ground cliff and it would make taking the gold expansion easier.
EatThePath, I enjoy the fact that you said as a Protoss player, you would take the counterclockwise expansion as your third base because that means the map has varying possibilities depending on the match ups. This is something that I feel is difficult to achieve and that sort of variability helps to increase the longevity of a map.
As for the open space in front of the natural, I didn't believe it to be very open when I was creating the map. I did intend that space to be used for battles and I left it intentionally open. But, upon further inspection of the analyzer image, I can see what you mean. I will see what I can do.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On December 02 2010 05:15 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 18:27 dezi wrote:
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D I don't have the info with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the playable size is 116x132, the main-to-main distances is a little over 150 and the nat-to-nat distances is about 125.
Sounds fine for a 1v1 map.
|
On December 02 2010 05:21 dezi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 05:15 BoomStevo wrote:On December 01 2010 18:27 dezi wrote:
I'm afraid to ask, but what's the size / distance? :D I don't have the info with me right now, but if I remember correctly, the playable size is 116x132, the main-to-main distances is a little over 150 and the nat-to-nat distances is about 125. Sounds fine for a 1v1 map.
Of course it is!
|
Made some changes to Harvest. Tell me what you think.
|
@Harvest v0.2: Wonderful! I agree with everything you did, and I can't find anything more to complain about.
|
On December 04 2010 23:15 EatThePath wrote:
@Harvest v0.2: Wonderful! I agree with everything you did, and I can't find anything more to complain about.
Cool. I'll probably move forward with finishing it up unless someone else has any comments.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I would like to see a version with the main, nat and 3rd all slightly pushed a little closer towards the center of the map (so f.e. the gap between the main and the expansions at 3 and 9 o'clock is a tad smaller.
Anyway, good 0.2 rework. Go for it
|
On December 05 2010 19:37 dezi wrote:I would like to see a version with the main, nat and 3rd all slightly pushed a little closer towards the center of the map (so f.e. the gap between the main and the expansions at 3 and 9 o'clock is a tad smaller. Anyway, good 0.2 rework. Go for it
That space is actually the distance of a siege tank. It makes it so the alternative expansion pattern is available and the opponent can take that as a 5th without having to worry about tanks from the main. It may not be a huge concern, but that's the reason why the gap is so big.
I updated the OP with version 0.2 of Dauntless. I closed off the back door and changed the high ground near the back door expansion to more of a "step". Tell me what you think.
+ Show Spoiler [Dauntless] +
|
So, the step is intended to provide more vulnerability to the downstairs base? If so, only colossus really...?
Now I see three easily defended bases with a long ground distance, and the fourth isn't difficult, like a normal third. I would never take the vertically adjacent gold, so that leaves the horizontally across gold as the only point of contention.
I really like the new spot for drops. I see drops as the main spectacle here. Overall, the layout is sort of uninspiring now, because the whole point before was the rocks. However, it quietly rewards well timed use of air units or drops, so in theory I could see interesting play. But at a basic level, blah.
|
Finish Dissension, Dune Sea, and Mount Ida.
NOW.
|
On December 07 2010 10:25 Antares777 wrote:
Finish Dissension, Dune Sea, and Mount Ida.
NOW.
I didn't think Dissension and Dune Sea were all that well received initially. Why do you think those are worthy of completion? I disliked Dissension but I did like Dune Sea. There are problems with Dune Sea that were pointed out that I agree with and haven't had any ideas how I wanted to go about fixing them. Mount Ida I've been working on for quite a while. I might finish it eventually.
|
Great maps, keep 'em coming.
|
Judicator added to WIP section of OP.
|
I like Judicator. The layout's pretty cool, and the lava pits keep it from looking square.
It would be cool if the droppable cliff in the topleft/botright corners had a small ramp to get up it.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Looks so huge and i'm not quite sure whether i like this one. Never liked Desert Oasis and this is somewhat similar.
|
On December 08 2010 18:07 dezi wrote:
Looks so huge and i'm not quite sure whether i like this one. Never liked Desert Oasis and this is somewhat similar.
To me it looks pretty small :/
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
That's why it's hard to just judge from those pictures. Need more input ^^
|
On December 08 2010 18:07 dezi wrote:
Looks so huge and i'm not quite sure whether i like this one. Never liked Desert Oasis and this is somewhat similar.
It's actually quite small measuring 140x92. I thought the biggest problems with Desert Oasis were the distance from main to natural and the openness of the natural. Otherwise, I thought it was a good map.
|
On December 08 2010 18:40 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 18:07 dezi wrote:
Looks so huge and i'm not quite sure whether i like this one. Never liked Desert Oasis and this is somewhat similar. It's actually quite small measuring 140x92. I thought the biggest problems with Desert Oasis were the distance from main to natural and the openness of the natural. Otherwise, I thought it was a good map.
The problems with Desert Oasis is that it is incredibly difficult to take a third base. The expansion layout is just not very well designed. This map does have a pretty good layout. Its just a bit too cramped for me
|
defensive siegetanks on all highgrounds (near ramps and in main) and it looks like one can operate quite comfortbaly from 4 bases?
this is a problem when mains are in centre of a circle of expansions. probably make main a bit smaller (deep lava pit) next to large ramp to disable turtling.
flow of expansions looks a bit odd..
|
On December 08 2010 19:15 Samro225am wrote:
defensive siegetanks on all highgrounds (near ramps and in main) and it looks like one can operate quite comfortbaly from 4 bases?
this is a problem when mains are in centre of a circle of expansions. probably make main a bit smaller (deep lava pit) next to large ramp to disable turtling.
flow of expansions looks a bit odd..
I think saying, "You could put tanks everywhere and you are well defended," is not a statement exclusive to this map. But if you think that placing siege tanks over half the map makes your 4 bases comfortable than I believe you'll be spread quite thin. Any base you take as a third cannot be easily defended with tanks in the main or without having a large line of them. The natural entrance is a little closed off because it becomes the back door entrance later in the game, in my opinion.
If you're reading the expansion pattern incorrectly, that my explain your concerns. I believe breaking down the rocks to your natural back door and taking that base as your third is the safe option. Taking the gold expansion is not a very safe third but it is an option.
|
really nice palette of colours and textures, kudos
|
|
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
This actually looks quite nice
|
Leviathan looks promising. That path around the outside to the highground next to the naturals is quite interesting, not sure how it would really play out though I would imagine it's uses would be very similar to the outside path on XNC.
You have so many unfinished maps - personally I can't make myself start a new map while I have another to finish. Is there a reason you don't finish half(~) of your maps?
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Sometimes you aren't just that satisfied with some designs or layouts anymore.
|
On December 13 2010 03:07 funcmode wrote:
Leviathan looks promising. That path around the outside to the highground next to the naturals is quite interesting, not sure how it would really play out though I would imagine it's uses would be very similar to the outside path on XNC.
You have so many unfinished maps - personally I can't make myself start a new map while I have another to finish. Is there a reason you don't finish half(~) of your maps?
For me the initial layouts take a lot less time than the aesthetics. I usually will get done with a layout that I reasonably like and then throw it up in this thread. I then pretty much don't look at the thing again for at least a day. I get some comments and when I open it again, I might have a new perspective. And sometimes, I just don't like it anymore and I don't come back to it. I have even started tons of maps that haven't made it as far as being posted in this thread.
I tend to work on many different things at the same time.
|
On December 13 2010 10:23 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 03:07 funcmode wrote:
Leviathan looks promising. That path around the outside to the highground next to the naturals is quite interesting, not sure how it would really play out though I would imagine it's uses would be very similar to the outside path on XNC.
You have so many unfinished maps - personally I can't make myself start a new map while I have another to finish. Is there a reason you don't finish half(~) of your maps? For me the initial layouts take a lot less time than the aesthetics. I usually will get done with a layout that I reasonably like and then throw it up in this thread. I then pretty much don't look at the thing again for at least a day. I get some comments and when I open it again, I might have a new perspective. And sometimes, I just don't like it anymore and I don't come back to it. I have even started tons of maps that haven't made it as far as being posted in this thread. I tend to work on many different things at the same time.
I'm a lot like that, except I play more than I map, and I have yet to finalize something enough to post it! I may finally do this over the holiday. Anyway, I really like Leviathan. One of the best things is that your first 2 or 3 bases are pretty defensible, but the better player will be scouting the enemy position a lot. You can respond quickly enough to an alternate route if you want to just camp, but you can get better position by staying on top of things. It gives me a vibe that's a mix of BW with SC2 ladder. ;D
|
On December 13 2010 10:44 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 10:23 BoomStevo wrote:On December 13 2010 03:07 funcmode wrote:
Leviathan looks promising. That path around the outside to the highground next to the naturals is quite interesting, not sure how it would really play out though I would imagine it's uses would be very similar to the outside path on XNC.
You have so many unfinished maps - personally I can't make myself start a new map while I have another to finish. Is there a reason you don't finish half(~) of your maps? For me the initial layouts take a lot less time than the aesthetics. I usually will get done with a layout that I reasonably like and then throw it up in this thread. I then pretty much don't look at the thing again for at least a day. I get some comments and when I open it again, I might have a new perspective. And sometimes, I just don't like it anymore and I don't come back to it. I have even started tons of maps that haven't made it as far as being posted in this thread. I tend to work on many different things at the same time. I'm a lot like that, except I play more than I map, and I have yet to finalize something enough to post it! I may finally do this over the holiday. Anyway, I really like Leviathan. One of the best things is that your first 2 or 3 bases are pretty defensible, but the better player will be scouting the enemy position a lot. You can respond quickly enough to an alternate route if you want to just camp, but you can get better position by staying on top of things. It gives me a vibe that's a mix of BW with SC2 ladder. ;D
I did include a few BW-esque things and I'm trying to do a little bit more experimentation. I'm glad it turned out to your liking. I hope to see a map from you soon.
|
|
|
i like your maps alot but naming/more fantasy ambience to support names could be increased
(2) Erebus - could be darker/ more shadowy but good first impression
(2) Phalanx - could be changed either to Aiur urban set (to assume toss fight in phalanxs)/ or rename to Centurion or Desert War or something refering to tileset choice
(2) Perdition - is good map
(2) Rendezvous - is good map
(2) Urban Jungle - is my favorite, posted in other theads that i like jungle/urban utopias (think it makes a nice battleground like a modern Athens or Sparta or Amazonia, so if you play like diablo think about the 5 acts and the towns (rogue cathedral/desert pyramid ruins/ancient jungle temple/hellish citadel/mountain stronghold) and pretend that if both players quit playing they could just order their scvs to build houses and live in your maps until they die of old age...or the map kills you like perdition...
(2) Crimson Crater - is good, middle could have more crater/more details (add meteorites/asteroids)
(2) Moonlit Monastery - is good name just don't see "the monastery" more like caverns or caves (so make a bigger manmade cliff middle or substructure)
(4) Orbital Decay - is good maybe too square
(2) Continuum - too plain right now, needs more asthetics
(2) Leviathan - could use water/dark water or lava redesign because leviathan is giant serpent/fish
(2) Judicator - could be remade as aiur/belshir/protoss urban tile since Judicator is protoss civilian/senator who would command the city with his private toss army or you could rename it to annihilator or incinerator or something to do with fire? unless this is aiur after the zerg have destroyed it...???
(2) Harvest - good idea but too clustered (Blood Harvest, Death Harvest. Soul Harvest?)
(2) Dauntless - looks like good start, too plain too wide (but wide is good if playres are dauntless, so more well designed bases with wide middle)
(4) Utopia - this could be phalanx/judicator while a more jungle/water/paradise colors applied to such a name (add more trees/more forest doodads remove some of the manmade cliffs)
(2) Dissension - too plain like dauntless
(2) Dune Sea - too complex, skinny in the middle (not enough "dune sea" area)
(2) Mount Ida - is very good map and i think it is almost done (maybe too wide in some areas)
|
Continuum looks sweet... flat choke ^^
|
There's something about continuum that gives it immediate appeal. It feels like a "let's fight, straight up" arena, but not featureless. I will have more comments later. Right now, the only thing I notice-- I don't like that the watchtowers are so defensible for respective sides. It makes defending the third while keeping the high ground too easy. But I like that they help defend the gold just the right amount. What if they were on flat ground with little or no obstruction? Thoughts? Crazy idea: put a ramp on the other side as well, but block it with a placed forcefield, so they can be opened up more by thor/colo/ultra.
|
On December 17 2010 10:46 lurkerbelow wrote:+ Show Spoiler +i like your maps alot but naming/more fantasy ambience to support names could be increased
(2) Erebus - could be darker/ more shadowy but good first impression
(2) Phalanx - could be changed either to Aiur urban set (to assume toss fight in phalanxs)/ or rename to Centurion or Desert War or something refering to tileset choice
(2) Perdition - is good map
(2) Rendezvous - is good map
(2) Urban Jungle - is my favorite, posted in other theads that i like jungle/urban utopias (think it makes a nice battleground like a modern Athens or Sparta or Amazonia, so if you play like diablo think about the 5 acts and the towns (rogue cathedral/desert pyramid ruins/ancient jungle temple/hellish citadel/mountain stronghold) and pretend that if both players quit playing they could just order their scvs to build houses and live in your maps until they die of old age...or the map kills you like perdition...
(2) Crimson Crater - is good, middle could have more crater/more details (add meteorites/asteroids)
(2) Moonlit Monastery - is good name just don't see "the monastery" more like caverns or caves (so make a bigger manmade cliff middle or substructure)
(4) Orbital Decay - is good maybe too square
(2) Continuum - too plain right now, needs more asthetics
(2) Leviathan - could use water/dark water or lava redesign because leviathan is giant serpent/fish
(2) Judicator - could be remade as aiur/belshir/protoss urban tile since Judicator is protoss civilian/senator who would command the city with his private toss army or you could rename it to annihilator or incinerator or something to do with fire? unless this is aiur after the zerg have destroyed it...???
(2) Harvest - good idea but too clustered (Blood Harvest, Death Harvest. Soul Harvest?)
(2) Dauntless - looks like good start, too plain too wide (but wide is good if playres are dauntless, so more well designed bases with wide middle)
(4) Utopia - this could be phalanx/judicator while a more jungle/water/paradise colors applied to such a name (add more trees/more forest doodads remove some of the manmade cliffs)
(2) Dissension - too plain like dauntless
(2) Dune Sea - too complex, skinny in the middle (not enough "dune sea" area)
(2) Mount Ida - is very good map and i think it is almost done (maybe too wide in some areas)
Wow, thanks for all of that feedback. I should note though that anything under the Works In Progress section has received very little aesthetic work. They are meant to be only layouts with paint fill textures that I can get feedback on and test.
On December 17 2010 10:51 iGrok wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Continuum looks sweet... flat choke ^^
Yes, there is a flat choke at the main. I decided to try one. It should provide the same wall off as a ramp. I think I'm going to extend it a little though.
On December 17 2010 15:16 EatThePath wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There's something about continuum that gives it immediate appeal. It feels like a "let's fight, straight up" arena, but not featureless. I will have more comments later. Right now, the only thing I notice-- I don't like that the watchtowers are so defensible for respective sides. It makes defending the third while keeping the high ground too easy. But I like that they help defend the gold just the right amount. What if they were on flat ground with little or no obstruction? Thoughts? Crazy idea: put a ramp on the other side as well, but block it with a placed forcefield, so they can be opened up more by thor/colo/ultra.
I don't usually like the watch towers on high ground like that. I put the ramp on that side because it was the best fit, instead of the best place. I'm going to change it so it isn't on high ground. I await your further comments.
|
Here's an updated image of my WIP Continuum. Changed the watchtowers to low ground, and messed with the chokes at the mains. Started a little texturing and doodads.
+ Show Spoiler [Continuum] +
|
Updated OP with new WIP: Foundation.
|
Continuum is coming along nicely. I really like Foundation - it looks great!
|
On December 27 2010 05:39 iGrok wrote:
Continuum is coming along nicely. I really like Foundation - it looks great!
I'm working on finishing up Continuum right now. I'm doing some cool yet unoriginal stuff. First time using the Castanar set.
I think Foundation is good, but I'll probably put it on the back burner for now. I feel like doing something more... vertical.
|
Sweden5462 Posts
|
On December 27 2010 08:13 Patriot.dlk wrote:
I like these maps
Thank you for the approval.
|
Leviathan has finally been published on EU! Leviathan 1.2 by BoomStevo published under FireBearHero.
|
Foundation looks good, nice job on that map. I like the main, natural, and third layout, it is very interesting/unusual compared to other current SCII maps. I'd love to see you finish that one.
|
On December 27 2010 12:44 G_Wen wrote:
Leviathan has finally been published on EU! Leviathan 1.2 by BoomStevo published under FireBearHero.
Sweet! Many thanks, G_Wen.
On December 27 2010 15:49 Antares777 wrote:
Foundation looks good, nice job on that map. I like the main, natural, and third layout, it is very interesting/unusual compared to other current SCII maps. I'd love to see you finish that one.
I try to do something interesting or unique in each of my maps. I like how the third is set up also, but I'm not sure about the rest of the map. I may make a few changes before I get into finishing touches.
|
Updated OP with new WIP: Forgotten.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Mh, compared with your latest maps (Continuum and Leviathan) this one isn't that good. I just miss the last tiny bit that turns to map into a BoomStevo awesome one :p
Maybe it's the lack of possible routes during the earlier stages of the game (only the middle path is available then).
|
Dont wanna be lame but your latest map, Forgotten, Is it only me or isnt it very much alike steppes?
|
On December 29 2010 10:53 Deekin[ wrote:
Dont wanna be lame but your latest map, Forgotten, Is it only me or isnt it very much alike steppes?
Other than having a high ground third, I don't think it's very similar. The rush distance is longer and I think the expansion pattern on Steppes of War is actually better than Forgotten.
|
On December 29 2010 13:03 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 10:53 Deekin[ wrote:
Dont wanna be lame but your latest map, Forgotten, Is it only me or isnt it very much alike steppes? Other than having a high ground third, I don't think it's very similar. The rush distance is longer and I think the expansion pattern on Steppes of War is actually better than Forgotten.
Yeah, I'd have to agree. While the early game would be nicer on Forgotten, Steppes is actually a better long-game map (Wow, steppes - long games?). Long games on Steppes have a great flow, it just needs to be a liiiittle longer. I like Forgotten, but some of the transitions look a little awkward
|
On December 29 2010 13:24 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 13:03 BoomStevo wrote:On December 29 2010 10:53 Deekin[ wrote:
Dont wanna be lame but your latest map, Forgotten, Is it only me or isnt it very much alike steppes? Other than having a high ground third, I don't think it's very similar. The rush distance is longer and I think the expansion pattern on Steppes of War is actually better than Forgotten. Yeah, I'd have to agree. While the early game would be nicer on Forgotten, Steppes is actually a better long-game map (Wow, steppes - long games?). Long games on Steppes have a great flow, it just needs to be a liiiittle longer. I like Forgotten, but some of the transitions look a little awkward
theres some similarities for sure, but its definitely not steppes
forgotten looks like you could split the map better than steppes, the bases on the far left and right should have the rocks moved to the other ramp
|
Hey, I've seen some pretty good long games on Steppes. The transitions are definitely awkward. I knew this when I was making it. I think this may be the third or fourth iteration. I decided that this was best but I was never satisfied.
I actually don't like that the map is so easily split. The rocks were placed like that to help un-split it so to say. I don't like that the expansion options are so limited.
|
I haven't had much time to work on maps of my own thanks to MotM, but I'm still around.
Updated the OP: Moved Continuum to the Completed section.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Looking forward to your next map but you already got a very sweet collection there
|
|
|
Korea (South)3013 Posts
A lot of the 2 player maps have a very similar feel, almost like Xel'Naga Caverns
|
On February 12 2011 13:33 JerKy wrote:
A lot of the 2 player maps have a very similar feel, almost like Xel'Naga Caverns
Thanks...
|
Overall that's a cool design, I like it. However I think it has 2 main issues; first, I think the middle ramps (not blocked by rocks) should be 1 size bigger, they look a little tight right now. Second, the extra entrance with the rocks looks like it will give a big advantage to the player spawning clockwise if close positions - who will get a pretty safe gold expo, whereas the anti-clockwise player's safest fourth is a lot more exposed and is also blocked by rocks.
I'm not sure what to recommend here really, as without that extra entrance the layout all of a sudden seems sort of bland... Perhaps if you shift the gold expo's slightly, so that the top-right gold moves slightly to the right, the bottom right moves slightly down, etc, that might help balance out the 4th base inequality. Downside of this might be siege tanks reaching parts of the main =/
Actually, looking at it again, once the rocks are destroyed, the anti-clockwise player probably has the advantage when it comes to actually attacking, so that might balance out with the slightly riskier 4th. I'd still make the most central ramps a bit bigger, but the entrances with rocks could actually be quite sweet.
|
boom, I don't play Terran but here's what I'd try on your newest: one or two barracks, OC, then pick up and fly to the gold which is a pretty short trip while you build a bunker or two at the ramp to center.
I think MULEs on the gold that early would more than make up for the lost mining time, and the advantage would kick in before your opponent's (even terran) early game army could threaten one of the extra rock routes in.
If you stabilized, you even have three bases to your rear to expand to!
Maybe a small destructible on the gold to keep the first command center from migrating until at least a handful of units are out?
|
|
|
that makes a lot of sense!
|
First of all, is it just me or do your analyzer settings not include distinct colorsets for different altitudes? I can't see the cliff levels at all in the analyzer pics (though you can deduce them most of the time, or use the real pics).
I like the new stuff. I was laughing to myself looking at your first maps, and what you turn out now! (That's a compliment, hehe.) You have a knack for using a subtle shift in expansion layout / orientation to completely redefine flow. Foundation seems perfect except it's slightly too big, too open. Shrink 10%, maybe just vertically? Forgotten* looks like a true macro map: the bases line up for the taking and can be defended by a good player, but nothing is free. The midgame push is very strong here, but you get highground for defending the 3rd. A longer game will be dominated by feigned pushes and good use of harassment / defending it. The gold choice is for 4th, not third, which is okay. Unfortunately the tower reveals it so you can't sneak it as a 3rd.
The unnamed big rotational map. The ramps to center have to be bigger simply as a concession to late game army size, if for no other reason. Otherwise there is no chokepoint that can fit 200/200 roach/hydra remax, for example. I would also double the ramp to the inside natural, it's just asking for a blockoff cheese at that size, and changing it doesn't really lose anything. I think to preserve the limited fluidity the center should be mostly or completely unbuildable. Bunkers and tanks and turrets... yuck. Not impossible, but the map is better without that. Maybe just a 6x6 or 8x8 buildable patch in the center. FYI, the tower circles reveal that they are slightly closer SW/NE than NW/SE, as well as the rest of the terrain, I assume. Not important imo.
edit: *I would classify it as "macro on par with fighting spirit"
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
How big is the map (playable area) and what are the m2m / n2n distances (also with rocks destroyed). The map idea seem so be to create a somewhat better version of Crevasse. When i compare this with Ptolemy i like your layout much more (center isn't so forced and there is more space to move around. You can actually take a 4th / 5th ... where as on Ptolemy you're right next to each other once you try to move out of you map quarter.
|
Last posts were pretty quick since I didn't have much time. I made a few changes from the suggestions and here are some better images. Oh, and a name:
Venator:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Wooow, boomstevo... that's a real interesting map...
I actually really can't wait to see this fully textured and doodaded (is this an actual word?). I really want to see pro games on this map... like seriously! nice!
|
On February 12 2011 20:04 dezi wrote:
How big is the map (playable area) and what are the m2m / n2n distances (also with rocks destroyed). The map idea seem so be to create a somewhat better version of Crevasse. When i compare this with Ptolemy i like your layout much more (center isn't so forced and there is more space to move around. You can actually take a 4th / 5th ... where as on Ptolemy you're right next to each other once you try to move out of you map quarter.
Sorry for taking so long to respond but I posted and decided to let the map sit for a while. I broke it out recently and I tested the times.
The map is 128x128 playable. As for distances, the analyzer main-to-main distances is about 140. Real-time ramp-to-ramp time is about 27 seconds with the rocks up and about 23 seconds with the rocks taken out.
On February 12 2011 20:31 EffectS wrote:
Wooow, boomstevo... that's a real interesting map...
I actually really can't wait to see this fully textured and doodaded (is this an actual word?). I really want to see pro games on this map... like seriously! nice!
Thanks. I will probably take this map to completion unlike a lot of my WIPs.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
What, this map that looks kinda big is only 128x128? Amazing :D
|
On March 02 2011 01:19 dezi wrote:
What, this map that looks kinda big is only 128x128? Amazing :D
we need proof!
it looks like 144x144, but uit would be amazing if only 128! it looks good and solid, the only point I have is the central ramps could be a little bit bigger. it must be possible to get behind the rock via the central route quickly, now it looks like a rather tight corner and there is quite some space to position siegetanks on the ledge next to the XWT. probably make ramps one size bigger and one step towards gold to ease movement up there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/BoomStevo/MapThreadLogo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/pkgUw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/eMIy6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sjLQR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/N2x8u.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vEoSH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YM4Sz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9VGp2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Yo6df.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iuLVI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/1IMWP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/e8b9e.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zZwHC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zU8AZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/kLCn8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/yFbS9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/b3xdG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xrA1b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qeVG1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/SgHTj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rALut.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mqCT5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/WQiwQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sSq9g.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OXPE7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mZwpJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RQ41c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GI11T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PJAe8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0lJh3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/s28Z7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/38624.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rQSn7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/IHlSD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PNmNn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KCV0K.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/tuPgF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PQa7W.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/c68bK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GPGQi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/J7R19.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/oBRcp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MFvGF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ftszG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/tFErc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nQe9T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ZAMe9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/jxBrm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/wOnlz.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sTY29.jpg)
