|
Here you can find all finished and work in progress maps by Samro225am.
To play these maps search for the maps title on battlenetEU.
Maps order by update (top). Work in progress at end of post.
Released
(2) Shrike 1.0 online on NA + EU
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6VM05.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +Features:12expansions (4 regular, 1 high yhield, 1 triple vespene per player) 2 watchtowers rushdistance: 156.2 (137.3nat) size: 128 x 112 Special features:Brake DRs to gain access to third geyser DRs blocked back door beetween Fourth and Triple Vespene LoSBs between fourth and DRs Overview:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/jliXp.jpg) Screenshots:+ Show Spoiler +Analyzer:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/IwDRI.jpg)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4 )Decline *** Top 5 of the MotM #1 *** 1.0 online on NA + EU
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/QCCMM.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +Concept + Show Spoiler +Idea:
A 4-spawn melee map with a general layout similar to LT on 144x144 without islands based on my map (4)Fate. I reworked my basic concept from scratch to make the map more compact. Expansion setup is Main+Nat at each four spawnpoints and two High Yield and Triple Vespene as alternative thirds. The High Yield should be central when expanding towards the map's centre. One more 1-gas expansion is in rather far walking distance, but save in between mid distance mains (at 1 and 7).
Note:
I wanted to make a map that had solid and balanced gameplay with some small things that produce interesting situations like the HY area, the centre, the drop-cliffs with ramps and so on, so I based it on an old layout idea already used in (4)Fate and refine it. Also I wanted to make something more colorfull than I did in my last maps.
Main problem was that I had so little time and I basically made this map in four evenings that tended to develop into nights the last two days before the end of the MotM competition.
Rush distances:
Close rush distances are longer than Metalopolis, while far rush distances are closer. This helps to create a well balanced setup that still has some differences between the three setups. Rush distances are rather evenly distributed with 117/137/155 (Main to Main) and 93/120/137 (Nat to Nat)
Features:
Wide open ramps can be found at both central HY areas and towards Nat-choke and triple vespene. Besides the more compact design, this is the main change or new feature considering (4)Fate as its prequel.
The position of the High Yield is interesting, because it is quite central situated like in Xel'Naga Caverns and has two open ramps and a deep back with a 1-gas expansion that could be used for drops. The cliffs at High Yield can be used devensivly against XN-watchtower or for drops. Also the Main can be cliff-walk attacked from High Yield area, so these two areas are together with the centre really important.
A word on the central path between the two XN: while the area is open, there are two holes separating the field into smaller areas: I think this rather hurts Terran than Zerg who can still come up with surrounds, while Terrans will be less powerfull controlling the open field with big clusters of slow tanks.
LoSB at entrances into triple-vespene expansions and at SE and NW end of the central area produce interesting options for movement.
DRs on third vespene at also blocks ramps that help counter drops. In general there are different drop-options at all shared expansions with no-fly zones around towers in map's corners at both triple vespene and 1-gas expansions.
Visual Design:
Since a had really little time for the visuals they may look a bit rushed in a few spaces, but still I think it looks rather well. Everywehere you can find something, alien flowers, fresh plants and so on. While I wanted to keep it basic and use really few different doodads, I wanted to create a look that is different at each main, so certain textures (two stone tiles) alternate between two mains, their nats and the High Yield area while the 1-gas and the triple vespene exoansions have a more netaural grassy look. There also is a gradient from top to bottom starting with green, fresh and helthy tress and changing to brown and red and finally some shakuras plants at bottom. This is where the maps title originates: forest decline. This is interesting and something that I would like to do again with some more time.
The textureset is a mixture of Aiur, Agria and Haven and Agria lighting setup. Overview + Show Spoiler +Screenshots + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9bPpV.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Llbof.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5ZZx0.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GAvDt.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/a9xRn.jpg) (Screenshots missing fog)
Mapthread (4)Decline
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Fate 1.1 online on EU
+ Show Spoiler +Fate, my third map, is my first try on a 4 playerstart map with a symmetrical layout that reminds of Lost Temple but is rather open: with two high yield expansions in the central area and two third and two fourth expansions on the mirroring axis players have to decide to expand towards or away from their opponent(s). One Xel'Naga watchtower at each end of the big cenral bridge (similar to LT, too) is not enough to take over control: players have to move around and scout because of alterantive pathes bigger but also longer than in LT. All three diferent setups for 1on1 play feature different distances. Works for 2on2 and FFA as well. overview + Show Spoiler +analyzer images + Show Spoiler +Summary Shortest Path 9-3 Shortest Path 9-6 Shortest Path 9-12 screenshots + Show Spoiler +Main Nat Third A Third B Fourth A Fourth B High Yield Alternate Path 1 Alternate Path 2 Centre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Tendency 1.1 online on EU
+ Show Spoiler +Tendency is my first symmetrical 2playerstart map. In my opinion there are two points of interest when designing such a map: 1. you need an interesting centre that gives access to all other areas 2. air distance should not be too short. This maps features an open third expansion on low ground with two ramps, one leads towards centre, one into the Natural. This additional entrance should not be considered a backdoor, because you can still position your army at he choke to control both entrances. It is really hard to wall your Natural off, though. With a triple vespene expansion on high ground that helps to control movement towards all other areas of the map, I think I have achieved an intersting centre. To counter any bold tries to take complete control their are two fourth expansions situated on a high ground separated by two chokes and connected to one of the two main attacking pathes with a wide ramp. There is an additional DR blocked ramp per side. Between the wide central ramp and the triple vespene expansion cliff you can find the single watchtower in this map. the watchtower helps to attack th highround in both directions. A high yield expansion between both Mains is far to reach by ground but close by air and is therefore blocked with DRs. The map's setup is unique and really works well. The map's design is really basic and concentrated on forming pretty much everything only with cliffes and textures, adding very few doodads where needed to indicate blocked terrain or positioning of vespene and gold expansion. overview + Show Spoiler +analyzer images + Show Spoiler +screenshots + Show Spoiler +Main Nat Third Fourth Triple Vespene High Yield Watchtower
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Prophecies 1.4 online on EU
+ Show Spoiler +Prophecies features a unique layout. As my second 1on1 map with rotational symmetry it also has a High Yield on low ground that is connected to the opponents Natural via a DR blocked backdoor. With a narrower centre and multiple attractive options for early expansions on Nat, Fourth or High Yield, positioning and scouting is crucial. LoSBs close to the open Third and at the Ntural/High Yield backdoor and the watchtower placement that forces players to move into centre in order to peek into 'their own' high yield area produce intersting situations. overview + Show Spoiler +analyzer images + Show Spoiler +screenshots + Show Spoiler +Main Nat Third Fourth High Yield Watchtower Nat to High Yield backdoor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Guardian's Grove 1.2 online on EU
+ Show Spoiler +My first map Guardian's Grove is a small and fast paced rotational symmetry map that has a rather simple layout with all expansions siuated in a circle around a central place. Positioning and controll of the map is important with an exceptional watchtower placement close to both high yield expansions that helps to scout movement along the alternative pathes. The map leaves it to the player to take controll of one of both high yield expansions before third and has an additional path between Natural and High Yield blocked with DRs. There is a dropzone close to the natural expansion that is connected to the centre via a wide. While the two-level cliff of both mains might help terran the map is balanced due to multiple options for attacking that makes manouvering important and balances out height advantages. overview + Show Spoiler +analyzer images + Show Spoiler +screenshots + Show Spoiler +Main Nat Third High Yield Drop @ Nat anti-siege barricade at ramp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work in progress
Kassad
+ Show Spoiler +
Apparatus mapthread
|
Awaiting your works in progress.
|
added new (4) map no.5 to wip
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
|
These look pretty great! Are they up in any way on the US servers? I'd like to try them out with my friends.
|
@ dezi
This map is nothing more than a quick sketch for a 168x168 sized rotational symmetry four player map.
On November 12 2010 05:09 Marquise wrote:
These look pretty great! Are they up in any way on the US servers? I'd like to try them out with my friends.
noting yet. kind of waiting for some feedback or confirmaton everything is fine before i start bothering people to upload them on us for me.
|
Map no. 5 is looking good. It seems a little big, though. Like some of the space could be cut out and the center is just big and open. I'm wondering what the rush distances would be. If the size remains the same, I'd like to see some watch towers covering some of the space.
I feel as if the expansions closest to the center should be high yield minerals. And possibly adding destructible rocks between the third and the fourth(?). Meaning the outside bases at around 3, 6, 9 and 12.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On November 12 2010 05:23 Samro225am wrote:@ dezi Show nested quote +
This map is nothing more than a quick sketch for a 168x168 sized rotational symmetry four player map.
Whoops, missed that ^^
|
awesome maps, nice presentation
|
added new (2) map no. 6 to wip
|
Map no.6 is looking really good. I like that there are a lot of expansion options and a nice variety of attack paths. The double wide main ramp might concern me depending on the rush distances. The main could be too big, but it's a little hard to tell. But those are pretty minor gripes for an overall fun looking design.
|
On November 08 2010 21:43 Samro225am wrote:(2) map no.6 sketch [spoiler] This map is 136x144 (playable size should be 136x136) and an offspring of the sketch for map no.5. Made it a two player map and conncected both sides with 2 alternate pathes. Main problem right now is that there are for expansions in the centre. Probably I should get rid of two of them (the ones close to the level 2 cliffs), make the others on low ground high yield and enlarge side pathes. and ramps into side path. sketch 1current versionsadded watchtowers and narrow connection towards side pathes. + Show Spoiler +
tinkering with the idea to make the fourth or semi islands into high instead of low ground and move watchtowers a bit more into centre of map to emphasize the possibility to go main>nat>semiisland>gold or go main>nat>third>far fourth before exoanding towards centre. what do you think?
main will be a bit smaller and map slightly more compact.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I like those low ground expansions > doesn't allow you enemy to drop tanks there to contain you (but maybe you want this?). I would block this small path from the mid to the watchtowers initially. This will force players to scout which path the enemy is taking early in the game and will enable you more options when the games progresses.
|
with the positioning of the main right now the qickest path is to go via central connection to watchtower to nat to main. this would be lost. I wanted to have a more dangerous or narrow path to be the quickest.
|
Looks nice. I'm going to try some of these maps as soon as I have the opportunity, and I'll try to give feedback regarding balancing issues fx.
|
updated op
wip map no.5 was scaled down to 168x168 and is now more compact while layout remaines
|
Firstly, I'd just like to say that these maps should totally be out on the US server. 
Guardian's Grove
I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the watch towers to the defending player. They seem like they would only provide useful scouting when the defending player has taken their third - and then only to attacks from the south. I think they would be more useful if they were placed on the small ledge just north of the LOS blockers they are behind right now (to the left of the third [from the top player's perspective]). That way, they could provide sight over the main early game attack route, which would also help a player on four-base defend against a splitting attack.
Fate
The 4 o'clock and 11 o'clock thirds seem a little too safe to take. You mentioned that the layout was based on LT - and I see that - and I can tell that you're trying to delay the expanding player with those destructible rocks - which works. I just think that, once a player does destroy the rocks and take that third, it will be too easily defended. I would suggest moving those bases inward more to expose them to the map center. That would necessitate more map control to secure them - LT style.
Other than that, I absolutely love the maps and wish I could play them here on the NA servers. :D
|
updated first post with a new map sketch
+ Show Spoiler +(4) map y sketch This map is a compact 4 player start position map with 136x136 playable size, similar in layout to my map (4)Fate + Show Spoiler +[url=http://imgur.com/uQJhx] ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ORCkD.jpg) [/url
@41d3n
thx for you feedback. I think I will not change anything on guardian's grove except making an overall big change. this means rethink the watchtowers. unsure if it is worth it.
also I think you are right with the really safe expansion. won't chzange it though, but will make sure this won't happen in my new map, a sequel to Fate you can see above.
|
Fate reminds me of a dungeon in Oblivion. Looks good, keep up the awesome work!
|
update OP with (4) Decline my MotM-1(January) entry
|
|
|
new map layout
+ Show Spoiler +
please tell me what you think concerning balance (and everything else that comes to your mind conecerning the layout)
|
On January 21 2011 03:03 Samro225am wrote:new map layout + Show Spoiler +please tell me what you think concerning balance (and everything else that comes to your mind conecerning the layout)
It's kind of criss-crossy so there are plenty of routes of varying width, and an elevation advantage in the middle, seems promising. When I see a 2-player map generally laid out like this with plenty of expos around the outside edge it makes me smile and dislike Jungle Basin a bit more. Jungle Basin is giving for 2 base and miserly for 3.
Are you worried that tank and Colossus range and even mid-range units can bombard a lot of the main (with vision)? You might want to take that chasm outside the natural and have it wrap around the main more to keep units from getting flush with the main's cliff.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Wasn't the ramp to the nat bigger in the version you showed me in IRC? Seems to force FE (maybe you want this?). As far as i can see you reduced the main 2 main distance quite a lot while keeping your initial idea. When do you gonna upload a non-analyzer picture? ^^
|
|
|
@dimfish:
actually I wanted to have one (more) expansion in the central area, but it just dos not fit anywhere.
tanks do not reach the mineral line, bu shooting the main or even storming in with colossi should be an option when establishing control on the oopen plateau area where centre connects to main.
i'm afraid i do not get that flushing thing. do you suggest to enlarge the unpathable thing next to the nat
@dezi:
i will have to check that nat ramp later (back home).
do you think i cut down rush distance too much?
playable size is 118x128, so I think I did a good job compressing everything. I cannot make it any more smaller without sacrifycing the more open areas and wide ramps.
@Silv.user:
thx! happy you like them. If you play one of my maps send me your replays and leave me a line here on what you like and dislike. I appeciate all feedback!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On January 21 2011 17:03 Samro225am wrote:
@dezi:
i will have to check that nat ramp later (back home).
do you think i cut down rush distance too much?
playable size is 118x128, so I think I did a good job compressing everything. I cannot make it any more smaller without sacrifycing the more open areas and wide ramps.
No, distance seems fine to me.
|
Liking the layout and general shape of it, will be interesting to see when finished!
A few inevitable questions:
Any plans on having watchtowers on it?
One concern I have is that the natural is siegable from the highground close to the third, is this the case?
Also, aren't the fourth and fifth's minerals and gas a bit too close to the edge of the map? (or is that intentional?)
|
2 watchtowers, they will be in the opening north and south of the two unpathable areas in middle of map.
as far as i remember only the gas is siegeable. but I think it is okay. first you should not give away control of area infront f third - then you are contained anyway. second: the highground has a pair of ramps, but unsure about exact construction.
any ideas on that highgroundarea highly appreciated!
distance to borders is pretty much the same at all borders and minerals, but guess there could be a bit more space overall for harass. will need more testing here.
also: you cannot siege from fourth into fifth and vice versa.
|
On January 21 2011 17:03 Samro225am wrote:
@dimfish:
actually I wanted to have one (more) expansion in the central area, but it just dos not fit anywhere.
tanks do not reach the mineral line, bu shooting the main or even storming in with colossi should be an option when establishing control on the oopen plateau area where centre connects to main.
i'm afraid i do not get that flushing thing. do you suggest to enlarge the unpathable thing next to the nat
I am ok with your layout of expos around the outside edge, I think the size of the map and the arrangement of paths for criss-crossing and possibly maneuvering around enemy armies will work out.
As for my suggestion for protecting the main from getting pounded by low ground attacks, this image shows the current main on the left and the extended chasm on the right. With a bigger chasm enemy units on the low ground can't move right up to the bottom of the main cliff (flush) along the entire perimeter, just some of it.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/a0F9I.png)
|
thx for elaborating on this potential problem. good point here.i think i will try it, but make it much more narrow. sothat i can keep the openness on the plateau.
here is an image from the xelnagas.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Would like to see the lower XTW slightly pushed to the right and vice versa with the top XWT. This way you gonna further decrease the coverage of the low ground paths next to the nat ramp and force scouting a little more.
I also want to point out that the main looks really small (20CC). Is it possible to stretch it to at least 25 without losing the current layout style?
|
are there any replays or suggestions concerning (2) TENDENCY, as I like to do a redesign of it.
|
A few minor suggestions from looking at the layout
- Larger main and/or natural, as currently it is small, and the small natural does not help.
- Reshape a few of the mineral-lines as they should have at least two holes and you should also try to have as many minerals close to the command center as possible (eg. when you have three minerals in a zig-zag pattern as on the 4 o'clock, put two close and one a square away).
- Maybe try putting the third one cliff level higher, to avoid the awkward double-level ramp to the fourth?
- Maybe make the natural ramp one size larger, but that depends on if you're going to reshape the natural.
- Also agree with dezi on the Xel'naga Watchtowers.
|
thanks for you suggestions, I think discussion could move to updated in map specific thread. i just used my general mapthread before creating the new map thread.
Apparatus map thread
|
On January 28 2011 20:07 Samro225am wrote:
are there any replays or suggestions concerning (2) TENDENCY, as I like to do a redesign of it.
I think this map is cool, what do want to redesign about it? The triple gas expo in center is flashy but exposed so its more of a fun touch than anything to worry about. I think the 3rd is well-placed. Also, I really like the two far blue expos where you can use the middle ramp but you probably want to break down the rocks on your own side to better protect a base there. Or you could concentrate at the middle and just watch the other guy's rocks to make sure he doesn't sneak in an attack that way.
Your map looks fun, what's to redesign? Big problems in testing?
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/97Rcq.jpg)
Kassad
new map on 132x112 / 12bases
|
blatant bump
because I would be so happy to get a few comments n the layout, especially the centre and the XWT placement.
|
A few quick questions and suggestions:
- The minerals at the in-base natural seem to be very oddly placed. There isn't much space around it to protect it (or is that intentional?)
- The highground behind the in-base natural seems to be pathable, is that intended? It might be hard to defend cliff harass as you can't do much from the main cliff, it will be hard enough to protect from normal drops as it is a small ramp to it.
- Gold bases might be a bit easy to hold as it is placed against the wall of the main.
- Maybe make the cliff between the natural and gold a bit longer to allow reapers to approach from a different angle.
- Why all the pathable cliffs next to the expansions? Seems like siege tank harass will be a staple tactic for terran on this map (how much of the natural (marked in the summary as third) is covered by the siege tank on the cliff next to the backdoor?)
- I think the center of the map is quite fine, the rocks are a good addition as it will allow easier flanking in the late game.
- I think the XWT placement is fine, it reveals a quite large part of the map, yet it still allows for counter attacks. Maybe move the towers a bit towards the rocks in the middle so the towers won't scout a counter attack if it is moved appropriately (ie. make the towers cover only a part of the middle path each, not the whole as it is now).
|
On February 28 2011 20:19 NullCurrent wrote:A few quick questions and suggestions: - The minerals at the in-base natural seem to be very oddly placed. There isn't much space around it to protect it (or is that intentional?)
- The highground behind the in-base natural seems to be pathable, is that intended? It might be hard to defend cliff harass as you can't do much from the main cliff, it will be hard enough to protect from normal drops as it is a small ramp to it.
the cliff at the in-base natural was added last minute. I think drops are fun to make/defend/watch.
thinking about it now, it might work better if it was connected to the main at some small point. I will also rework it to have more space at minerals. (think there was some space lost while repositioning several parts of the map after some discussion with dezi)
On February 28 2011 20:19 NullCurrent wrote:A few quick questions and suggestions: - Gold bases might be a bit easy to hold as it is placed against the wall of the main.
- I think the center of the map is quite fine, the rocks are a good addition as it will allow easier flanking in the late game.
- I think the XWT placement is fine, it reveals a quite large part of the map, yet it still allows for counter attacks. Maybe move the towers a bit towards the rocks in the middle so the towers won't scout a counter attack if it is moved appropriately (ie. make the towers cover only a part of the middle path each, not the whole as it is now).
i guess these points are connected. First let me explain the idea behind the layout. I wanted to grant the option for a save third and more defensive, macro oriented strategy, but at the same time give a more aggressive player the chance to expand forward early on. If player1 expands on the rather save plateau on the one side, player2 could decide to take map control in the actual centre and get both expansions on low ground. In an earlier version I even tested a very similar layout with two highyield expansions on lowground. The idea is that one should be at least able to expand main-nat a.k.a. third-gold and leave the in-base natural away for example.
It takes only one creeptumor to connect the main with the nat a.k.a. third and two more to connect with gold/low ground or mid ground fourth/fifth expansion. That means there are a lot of options expansionwise and this is the reason why the design is so compact an the gold is so close to one's main.
-> do you think the opening at the DRs should be bigger? (4x4, not 6x6 at the moment)
moving the xwt does not work that great. i tried around a lot. the only options i see is one XWT in the middle or two really crazy different ones at the outer borders that help attacks from the sides into the ground expansions.
On February 28 2011 20:19 NullCurrent wrote:A few quick questions and suggestions: - Maybe make the cliff between the natural and gold a bit longer to allow reapers to approach from a different angle.
- Why all the pathable cliffs next to the expansions? Seems like siege tank harass will be a staple tactic for terran on this map (how much of the natural (marked in the summary as third) is covered by the siege tank on the cliff next to the backdoor?)
good point on the cliff there. two reaper entrances will be lovely.
the cliff at the in-main nat will be changed, the only real cliff remaining will be at the fourth.
i tried around with tank lines at different positions and angles between nat("third") and fourth, but did not test the cliff there tbh. i think i wanted to make it unpathable, but it might be intersting. from looking at the analyzer pic i am pretty sure the nat is save from this cliff, though. I did not built it to be used against the expansion there, rather as a defensive position for a siege cliff drop that covers the front door between nat and fourth.
thanks a lot for your input, i appreciate it!
|
Sounds interesting with a small entrance to the cliff above the in-base natural, still makes it possible for zerg to respond easily, but it can cost a lot with a small entrance vs marines with a medivac 
For the center, the only thing I think is a bit strange is how safe the gold is as it is so close to the main. If you give the watchtowers vision of the opponent's gold I think it would be more balanced, as the one expanding to the gold has to expect a lot of pressure.
Maybe rotate it or move it slightly towards the middle, so an attacker won't be so out of place when attacking?
(don't move it too much, or it will only be loved by terrans as they can siege up next to it and guard their ramp to the "third").
Try making the rocks larger, but I'm not sure if it is necessary, but it can make it easier to threaten the gold bases which is a plus.
The highground next to the "third", maube add a ramp up to it so it more easily can be used defensively?
A few more questions: Rush distance from nat to nat? ("third" to "third" if we're speaking about the summary's naming of things) Because zerg might want to do a fast expand.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Maybe also post the initial concept of the map in here Samro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ad3OL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nvMGg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Mj0aE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/IFlYd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0E1SH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/lwWMy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OaFCO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/XIFOL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/t7rP9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/CdnXh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/4C9xv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/w6JQL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/UV6pZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/gNp8x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sv8z4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/gze77.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/l6YWa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/LOpsm.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/I3JAB.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/40H60.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YNFXS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/p76Qy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/597Ef.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/yPOod.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8odt1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/7NZ0O.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/N245X.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zUwaY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/f0EKJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YVTFS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/7wWc0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Y3OIq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/O1hrN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mz6kE.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rsmG9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GGSV3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/7YLCW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/VkThG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rHgvV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KOQxR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0cQ7n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/BHrh7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iFUlb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5pqaj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/t9CvD.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/aVrLp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9HJom.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/UozYE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5eusR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/CyzNW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/x5eZc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/uYIsv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/UXKQJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GnzQH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Uc3vo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/1yr3W.png)
![[image loading]](http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2661/ggoverview.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/BzMB7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/HlpsH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OCjM2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/NB2Gb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/jrnnh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/WsRzL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2Pan6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KYdzd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/AqVVm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lUmKl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OvpT7.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x7wMK.png)
