|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/opbUK.jpg)
Available on: EU & US
-Thanks to Darkbane. If someone is interested in uploading the map to other regions, please let me know.-
Introduction:
Spaced is my attempt at creating a 4 spawn map with the fewest possible positional imbalances. I personally strongly dislike rotational symmetry in 4P maps, as regardless of the layout, one position tends to have a significant advantage over the other when players spawn in close positions. Typically maps that use reflective symmetry are more balanced but instead suffer from a huge disparity in rush distances (Lost Temple, Metalopolis, etc.).
With that in mind, I created Spaced. It uses reflective symmetry, but is designed in such a way that the rush distances are as similar as possible between the 4 different spawns. I also wanted players to have a (relatively) safe third regardless of where they spawned.
The map itself is quite large, but in part that's just because of the "diagonal/diamond" orientation - if it was rotated 45degrees, the map would be smaller. This was just personal preference, bored of standard square maps with spawns in the corners. 
In initial testing, it played quite uniquely, not really comparable to any of the current ladder maps. Cross-positions feel surprisingly small since there's little obstruction, and the actual distance from the ramp up to your natural and theirs is relatively short. Personally out of all my maps to date I think it's definitely the most fun to play on.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MqgdH.jpg)
(SUPER-HQ) Angled View
(SUPER-HQ) Top-Down View
Rush Distance Info:
+ Show Spoiler +Comparing the rush distances between this map and a few others;
Spaced:
Close: 148.8
Mid: 159.5
Far: 179.7
Disparity: 30.9
Metalopolis:
Close: 111.5
Mid: 138.3
Far: 164.6
Disparity: 53.1
Lost Temple:
Close: 118.2
Mid: 150.4
Far: 158.5
Disparity: 40.2
As you can see, there is still a difference (physics dictates that to always be the case), but it's a lot less significant. That combined with the much larger shortest rush distance (148.8 vs 115~) means short rush games should be quite unlikely but by no means impossible.
Analyzer Pictures:
+ Show Spoiler +
Thanks for looking, I look forward to hearing what you guys think
|
|
|
it seems like having the gold expo might be too easy to defend seeing as the xelnaga watch towers are so close. as a zerg player I can imagine how difficult it would be to bust a gold expo with even just a couple of tanks/a PF when there are only two ways into the base (semi-chokes) and you cannot see what is on the other side due to the smoke screen. especially with the xelnaga warning the defender of the incoming forces...
perhaps it would be better to either eliminate the xel nagas from those two gold locations or maybe to put the tower on the other side of the wall?
Edit:
looks like a cool map though, macro oriented, so it should provide some entertaining games...
is there a way I could get this for US server?
also, it'd be cool to have a ramp from the main to the third with destructible rocks so that it's a little bit easier to defend in the mid game, just a thought though
|
Like Barrin said, you should pull the natural's ramp back towards the main a bit.
Like ishboh said, do something about those XWTs. I'd put them on the other side of the tower.
I like the symmetry that is present in this map, as well as the elegant texturing. After viewing the rush distances, I like how the close distance spawns are not actually that close. That, plus the fact that there are 14 expansions allow for longer macro-oriented games, which I love, and is reminiscent of how BW played out.
Great map! 
|
Best map I've seen on these forums. Including those of iCCup.
Only one comment, which isen't really a comment, but more of a pointer? I don't know, just keep in mind that it literally is the best map I've seen so far:
- I'd remove the Xel'Naga watchtower at the golds. Or if you wanna go all wacky, invert the cliff there and keep the xel'naga watchtower on the other side. Just to make the gold risky to take. Oh ye, the watchtower should also be able to see a bit of the expansion on the gold if you do so.
Anywho. Best map...so far.
|
Looks really nice. Not only does it look like awesome games could be played on it, the art is pretty solid too. Nice texturing, really looks elegant, like Barrin already said.
|
This map is fantastic. I disagree with all of the suggestions to change anything. I think it's great the way it is.
|
On December 14 2010 05:08 Barrin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hehe this is pretty good  Quite "elegant" in it's simplicity. The only thing I would change prior to testing would be the main's ramp. Move it closer to the natural's ramp. I fear in it's current state this map would favor turtling just a bit too much. Also there is a crapton of dead space on the outside of the map, which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO.
On December 14 2010 05:21 ishboh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +it seems like having the gold expo might be too easy to defend seeing as the xelnaga watch towers are so close. as a zerg player I can imagine how difficult it would be to bust a gold expo with even just a couple of tanks/a PF when there are only two ways into the base (semi-chokes) and you cannot see what is on the other side due to the smoke screen. especially with the xelnaga warning the defender of the incoming forces...
perhaps it would be better to either eliminate the xel nagas from those two gold locations or maybe to put the tower on the other side of the wall?
Edit:
looks like a cool map though, macro oriented, so it should provide some entertaining games...
is there a way I could get this for US server?
also, it'd be cool to have a ramp from the main to the third with destructible rocks so that it's a little bit easier to defend in the mid game, just a thought though
On December 14 2010 05:39 Antares777 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Like Barrin said, you should pull the natural's ramp back towards the main a bit. Like ishboh said, do something about those XWTs. I'd put them on the other side of the tower. I like the symmetry that is present in this map, as well as the elegant texturing. After viewing the rush distances, I like how the close distance spawns are not actually that close. That, plus the fact that there are 14 expansions allow for longer macro-oriented games, which I love, and is reminiscent of how BW played out. Great map!
On December 14 2010 06:10 EffectS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Best map I've seen on these forums. Including those of iCCup.
Only one comment, which isen't really a comment, but more of a pointer? I don't know, just keep in mind that it literally is the best map I've seen so far:
- I'd remove the Xel'Naga watchtower at the golds. Or if you wanna go all wacky, invert the cliff there and keep the xel'naga watchtower on the other side. Just to make the gold risky to take. Oh ye, the watchtower should also be able to see a bit of the expansion on the gold if you do so.
Anywho. Best map...so far.
Thanks so much for the feedback everyone <3
There were a few concerns with the XWT's so I'll comment on that first. I basically wanted players to have a watchtower they could fight over for control regardless of where they spawned. In Lost Temple, when spawning at close ground positions, the XWT between the two bases is critical, but close air positions they aren't quite as important. The opposite is true on Metalopolis and I wanted the best of both. The two entrances through the LOS blockers in Spaced are quite wide (wider than the main attack paths on Metalopolis) and a single air unit practically nullifies the LOS blockers themselves and the sight advantage from the XWT - so I'm not convinced it's a massive concern.
While testing, it proved quite difficult for terrans to take the golds, as it left their main base quite open to counter-attacks. Taking the third just outside the main proved a safer option. I also don't think gold bases are really that good, so shouldn't be ridiculously hard to defend anyway. While I can definitely understand the concerns, I think the larger map size actually disadvantages Terran enough to grant them this one concession.
Regarding the main ramp location - it's current position is critical to the maps design, as moving the ramp as suggested would reduce the rush times. I spent a lot of time experimenting with this part of the map, and this seemed to be the best compromise. I wanted players to be able to build an effective wall-in at their natural, but at the same time I didn't want to give the defender too much of an advantage, so the natural choke widens quite a bit as you get closer to the middle of the map. Moving the main ramp upsets this balance, so I'm hesitant to change it just yet.
I actually quite like the idea of having a second ramp to the third from the main - but I'm not sure just how useful it would really be. Most players so far seem to gather their forces either at the top of the ramp to their natural, or at the bottom. The third is just a stone's throw away from here, so I don't think a second ramp would make a huge difference, and may even upset the balance ("mid" positions (12&3) would end up being a lot like Blistering Sands if there was a second ramp here, and I'm not a huge fan of Blistering Sands ;D).
As for the empty space, yeah, there's quite a lot of it like in Delta Quadrant (again because of the diamond shape). A lot of people make a big deal about this in some maps, but I'm yet to see it ever be truly exploited so I don't think it's a problem - I'm glad you (Barrin) think the same.
On December 14 2010 10:15 Koagel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Looks really nice. Not only does it look like awesome games could be played on it, the art is pretty solid too. Nice texturing, really looks elegant, like Barrin already said.
On December 14 2010 10:23 BoomStevo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This map is fantastic. I disagree with all of the suggestions to change anything. I think it's great the way it is.
Thank you!
@Koagel, a compliment on the textures from yourself means a lot to me, I appreciate it
@BoomStevo, Not sure what to say besides thanks, I spent a great deal of time on this map and I'm glad it shows
I'll continue experimenting with the XWT's near the golds in case it turns out to be a big concern, but I would love for some more people to play a few games on it before I make some significant changes. If you could find the time to give it a quick test I'd very much appreciate it!
Doing my best to get this map up on US ASAP, hopefully some time today.
|
1. I don't understand why you don't like rotational symmetry. It makes for so much more fun games instead of mirror matches. If you design it well, positional imbalance can be almost nullified.
2. Even though the map has a diamond shaped position, it's still too big. In your map, it's partly because you placed the naturals so far back. I can see it worked out relatively well here but I'd still shrink it down to like 144x144.
3. I think the texturing could use a little bit more work. It looks like you mostly went with having one side of the line filled with one texture and the other side with another. It looks fine at high quality but I'm wondering if it'll be as good at a lower quality.
Overall though, I think this is a good map. Especially for a TL mapmaker. Bravo.
|
|
|
I agree that the ramp that connects the main and natural should be a bit closer to the starting location.
Other than that, this map looks amazing. I can't wait to try it out with my friends!
|
I really like the way the third expansions work. texturing is elegant, but I dislike the way the main base covers the natural's entrance: siegtanks (:
edit: I like that rushing times are a little bit different everywhere. I think it is important that there are minimal imbalances to keep things interesting in the long run (no perferct sure plays).
|
Really great map, I think you created exactly what you wanted and I love the simplicity of the map. Looks great, too!
Will try it as soon as I can.
|
On December 14 2010 22:04 neobowman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +1. I don't understand why you don't like rotational symmetry. It makes for so much more fun games instead of mirror matches. If you design it well, positional imbalance can be almost nullified.
2. Even though the map has a diamond shaped position, it's still too big. In your map, it's partly because you placed the naturals so far back. I can see it worked out relatively well here but I'd still shrink it down to like 144x144.
3. I think the texturing could use a little bit more work. It looks like you mostly went with having one side of the line filled with one texture and the other side with another. It looks fine at high quality but I'm wondering if it'll be as good at a lower quality.
Overall though, I think this is a good map. Especially for a TL mapmaker. Bravo.
I appreciate the criticism, but;
1. Can you explain why rotational symmetry = much more fun games? You can't really argue that the differences allow for more variations in strategy depending on the spawn, cause if that's the case then the map simply isn't balanced. I personally just don't like rotational symmetry because while the imbalances can be almost nullified, they still exist - and the fact that people have to remake blizzard maps because of minute differences between the two sides goes to show that even the smallest difference can have significant consequences.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not on some crusade against rotational symmetry. It has it's place, and can certainly be used to great effect, but personally I'm just not a fan.
2. Again, can you explain why it's too big rather than just blindly stating it to be the case? I'm all ears if you can justify what you're saying, but why is it being larger than average a bad thing and not a good thing? I think limiting ourselves to such strict guidelines this early in the game's lifecycle isn't a wise decision when we should be more open to experimentation.
I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I disregarding your valued opinion, I do however think it's wrong for anyone to think they have the authority to simply state "this map's too big" or "this map's too small" - at least yet.
3. Do any maps look as good on low quality? Is anyone who plays on low settings in a position to complain about how a map looks? Do they even care? The answer to most of these questions is probably no.
If anyone really thinks they can improve on the textures you're more than welcome
On December 14 2010 23:41 Samro225am wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I really like the way the third expansions work. texturing is elegant, but I dislike the way the main base covers the natural's entrance: siegtanks (:
edit: I like that rushing times are a little bit different everywhere. I think it is important that there are minimal imbalances to keep things interesting in the long run (no perferct sure plays).
Siege tanks are a big concern for any mapmaker, absolutely, but no matter what there will always be parts of a map where they're strong and where they're not. That's just the way the unit works. On this map, tanks on the highground near the natural are without a doubt a formidable defence, but it won't win you the game unless your opponent is an idiot
I'm really happy with the positive response so far, so thank you. I'll look in to the main ramp since people keep bringing it up, but I'm pretty sure the distance from the starting position is quite standard.
|
|
|
On December 15 2010 04:25 funcmode wrote:If anyone really thinks they can improve on the textures you're more than welcome
Hm, I wouldn't try to honestly. My style with these metal plates reminds more of a jigsaw puzzle, I usually wouldn't use this many of these straight white intersection lines here. Albeit more detailed, I believe my style would look much less elegant, and as elegance is the strongest point of your design, it wouldn't be a good idea to ruin it.
What bothers me the most is the green lighting on the cliffs. Usually, green is rather associated with flora, while your map is a cold space station. I mostly use red and blue on space tilesets. Red wouldn't fit here. Blue would be what I'd try first, but it might end up looking boring. I think I'd experiment a bit more on this.
|
|
|
so has anybody put this on the US server? i wanna play this sheet nao!!
|
On December 15 2010 04:25 funcmode wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 22:04 neobowman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +1. I don't understand why you don't like rotational symmetry. It makes for so much more fun games instead of mirror matches. If you design it well, positional imbalance can be almost nullified.
2. Even though the map has a diamond shaped position, it's still too big. In your map, it's partly because you placed the naturals so far back. I can see it worked out relatively well here but I'd still shrink it down to like 144x144.
3. I think the texturing could use a little bit more work. It looks like you mostly went with having one side of the line filled with one texture and the other side with another. It looks fine at high quality but I'm wondering if it'll be as good at a lower quality.
Overall though, I think this is a good map. Especially for a TL mapmaker. Bravo. I appreciate the criticism, but; 1. Can you explain why rotational symmetry = much more fun games? You can't really argue that the differences allow for more variations in strategy depending on the spawn, cause if that's the case then the map simply isn't balanced. I personally just don't like rotational symmetry because while the imbalances can be almost nullified, they still exist - and the fact that people have to remake blizzard maps because of minute differences between the two sides goes to show that even the smallest difference can have significant consequences. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on some crusade against rotational symmetry. It has it's place, and can certainly be used to great effect, but personally I'm just not a fan. 2. Again, can you explain why it's too big rather than just blindly stating it to be the case? I'm all ears if you can justify what you're saying, but why is it being larger than average a bad thing and not a good thing? I think limiting ourselves to such strict guidelines this early in the game's lifecycle isn't a wise decision when we should be more open to experimentation. I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I disregarding your valued opinion, I do however think it's wrong for anyone to think they have the authority to simply state "this map's too big" or "this map's too small" - at least yet. 3. Do any maps look as good on low quality? Is anyone who plays on low settings in a position to complain about how a map looks? Do they even care? The answer to most of these questions is probably no. If anyone really thinks they can improve on the textures you're more than welcome Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 23:41 Samro225am wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I really like the way the third expansions work. texturing is elegant, but I dislike the way the main base covers the natural's entrance: siegtanks (:
edit: I like that rushing times are a little bit different everywhere. I think it is important that there are minimal imbalances to keep things interesting in the long run (no perferct sure plays). Siege tanks are a big concern for any mapmaker, absolutely, but no matter what there will always be parts of a map where they're strong and where they're not. That's just the way the unit works. On this map, tanks on the highground near the natural are without a doubt a formidable defence, but it won't win you the game unless your opponent is an idiot I'm really happy with the positive response so far, so thank you. I'll look in to the main ramp since people keep bringing it up, but I'm pretty sure the distance from the starting position is quite standard.
1. It's a lot harder to make good maps with non-rotational symmetry. The variety simply isn't there. It's hard to explain with words honestly but if you like non-rotational, then there's nothing wrong with it.
2. Too big means Zerg has an advantage. It's been this way since Brood War. You know why Zergs complain about Steppes being too small right? Goes the same way in reverse. The longer the rush distance, the more Zerg can drone up without having to worry about having to make units to defend against a push. The Python remake I did was on 144x144 and it felt HUGE. Far too Zerg favoured. This map is designed differently but 160x160 is still too big.
3. It's good mapping style. I could just be ranting since good decoing was one of the hallmarks of good mapping in Brood War. I'd still prefer better texturing with more work put in.
|
Very nice
Easily defended natural, very nice s[acing of the bases, I like the fact that it's so open
|
As a Terran player I approve of this map
|
On December 15 2010 04:52 WniO wrote:
Everything looks superb.
Thanks WniO
On December 15 2010 05:07 Koagel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 15 2010 04:25 funcmode wrote:If anyone really thinks they can improve on the textures you're more than welcome Hm, I wouldn't try to honestly. My style with these metal plates reminds more of a jigsaw puzzle, I usually wouldn't use this many of these straight white intersection lines here. Albeit more detailed, I believe my style would look much less elegant, and as elegance is the strongest point of your design, it wouldn't be a good idea to ruin it. What bothers me the most is the green lighting on the cliffs. Usually, green is rather associated with flora, while your map is a cold space station. I mostly use red and blue on space tilesets. Red wouldn't fit here. Blue would be what I'd try first, but it might end up looking boring. I think I'd experiment a bit more on this.
I used your "jigsaw" method within the metal areas themselves, it's a combination of mostly two interlocking textures with others mixed in here and there. I have to say I was somewhat inspired by your post in that other thread, so thanks I tried doing the same thing where the metal meets the rock, but regardless it never looked quite right. The white lines looked better so I went with them instead.
As for the cliff lighting, I experimented with practically every cliff and light set, and while it was a tough decision between blue and green I eventually chose green, there wasn't a lot between them but the green seemed to give the map a better atmosphere.
On December 15 2010 05:55 neobowman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 15 2010 04:25 funcmode wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 22:04 neobowman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +1. I don't understand why you don't like rotational symmetry. It makes for so much more fun games instead of mirror matches. If you design it well, positional imbalance can be almost nullified.
2. Even though the map has a diamond shaped position, it's still too big. In your map, it's partly because you placed the naturals so far back. I can see it worked out relatively well here but I'd still shrink it down to like 144x144.
3. I think the texturing could use a little bit more work. It looks like you mostly went with having one side of the line filled with one texture and the other side with another. It looks fine at high quality but I'm wondering if it'll be as good at a lower quality.
Overall though, I think this is a good map. Especially for a TL mapmaker. Bravo. I appreciate the criticism, but; 1. Can you explain why rotational symmetry = much more fun games? You can't really argue that the differences allow for more variations in strategy depending on the spawn, cause if that's the case then the map simply isn't balanced. I personally just don't like rotational symmetry because while the imbalances can be almost nullified, they still exist - and the fact that people have to remake blizzard maps because of minute differences between the two sides goes to show that even the smallest difference can have significant consequences. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on some crusade against rotational symmetry. It has it's place, and can certainly be used to great effect, but personally I'm just not a fan. 2. Again, can you explain why it's too big rather than just blindly stating it to be the case? I'm all ears if you can justify what you're saying, but why is it being larger than average a bad thing and not a good thing? I think limiting ourselves to such strict guidelines this early in the game's lifecycle isn't a wise decision when we should be more open to experimentation. I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I disregarding your valued opinion, I do however think it's wrong for anyone to think they have the authority to simply state "this map's too big" or "this map's too small" - at least yet. 3. Do any maps look as good on low quality? Is anyone who plays on low settings in a position to complain about how a map looks? Do they even care? The answer to most of these questions is probably no. If anyone really thinks they can improve on the textures you're more than welcome Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 23:41 Samro225am wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I really like the way the third expansions work. texturing is elegant, but I dislike the way the main base covers the natural's entrance: siegtanks (:
edit: I like that rushing times are a little bit different everywhere. I think it is important that there are minimal imbalances to keep things interesting in the long run (no perferct sure plays). Siege tanks are a big concern for any mapmaker, absolutely, but no matter what there will always be parts of a map where they're strong and where they're not. That's just the way the unit works. On this map, tanks on the highground near the natural are without a doubt a formidable defence, but it won't win you the game unless your opponent is an idiot I'm really happy with the positive response so far, so thank you. I'll look in to the main ramp since people keep bringing it up, but I'm pretty sure the distance from the starting position is quite standard. 1. It's a lot harder to make good maps with non-rotational symmetry. The variety simply isn't there. It's hard to explain with words honestly but if you like non-rotational, then there's nothing wrong with it. 2. Too big means Zerg has an advantage. It's been this way since Brood War. You know why Zergs complain about Steppes being too small right? Goes the same way in reverse. The longer the rush distance, the more Zerg can drone up without having to worry about having to make units to defend against a push. The Python remake I did was on 144x144 and it felt HUGE. Far too Zerg favoured. This map is designed differently but 160x160 is still too big. 3. It's good mapping style. I could just be ranting since good decoing was one of the hallmarks of good mapping in Brood War. I'd still prefer better texturing with more work put in.
1. I'd actually argue the opposite, most rotational symmetry maps I see tend to be very similar and have the same kind of features and problems. Really though, with 4P maps, the spawns are almost always going to be in roughly a square shape, and regardless of the symmetry there's only so much you can do with the space in between.
At the end of the day, I prefer standard lines of symmetry because it means, no matter what, both players are always in identical circumstances and there are zero positional advantages or disadvantages. The playing field is 100% even and I can't understand why if that's an option people would choose to make maps that aren't. But whatever, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree
2. While I agree with you that large maps almost always favour zerg (obviously), I don't think zerg on this map specifically are OP, so the size itself is largely irrelevant. I think people put too much weight on the specific dimensions of maps and tend to think anything bigger than a particular size is too big regardless of the maps design. If what you're trying to say isn't that this map is too big but instead that it is zerg favoured, then I'd argue that you're putting too much emphasis on the size of the map and are ignoring many of it's other features.
3. Well the offer from my previous post still stands. In truth, I spent a ridiculous amount of time texturing this map. None of it is copy/pasted and each part of the map is completely unique. A lot of the details are very subtle, but the detail is still very much there. It may not look astounding in low quality, but like I said, what map does?
On December 15 2010 06:09 Retgery wrote:
Very nice
Easily defended natural, very nice s[acing of the bases, I like the fact that it's so open
Cheers!
On December 15 2010 07:28 Moody wrote:As a Terran player I approve of this map
Just waiting on that protoss and zerg approval then
On December 15 2010 05:46 SirDuke wrote:
so has anybody put this on the US server? i wanna play this sheet nao!!
If anyone reading this thread right now is interested in uploading the map to US, send me a PM
Thank you everyone for all the feedback so far.
|
I was approving because of all the places my reapers can jump up, and how awesome tanks on my ledge would be for turtling 
|
funcmode. this map is well designed. but its too big.
Rush distance
Right now, the rush distance has got to be pretty long. 45-50 seconds maybe? By the time someone does early aggression, the Zerg player will have droned at an expo already, and fortified defenses or built up a huge army. This completely nullifies early pressure.
Harass
Third and fourths have no harass. Now the zerg player can take an early third without having to worry about harass. The game has turned into a turtle fest. This puts macro at a huge advantage, too much almost.
Open Middle
The middle is completely open. This means Zerg can maneuver so easily, he needs not worry about positioning, surrounds, flanks, etc. LoS blockers work to his advantage too, because tanks are worse, while surrounds are better. Zerg can move freely and not in danger.
Combining these three together is deadly. I suggest remaking it to 140x140, and adding harass to 3rd (yes, you will have to space it out a bit).
|
On December 15 2010 12:26 monitor wrote:
funcmode. this map is well designed. but its too big.
Rush distance
Right now, the rush distance has got to be pretty long. 45-50 seconds maybe? By the time someone does early aggression, the Zerg player will have droned at an expo already, and fortified defenses or built up a huge army. This completely nullifies early pressure.
Harass
Third and fourths have no harass. Now the zerg player can take an early third without having to worry about harass. The game has turned into a turtle fest. This puts macro at a huge advantage, too much almost.
Open Middle
The middle is completely open. This means Zerg can maneuver so easily, he needs not worry about positioning, surrounds, flanks, etc. LoS blockers work to his advantage too, because tanks are worse, while surrounds are better. Zerg can move freely and not in danger.
Combining these three together is deadly. I suggest remaking it to 140x140, and adding harass to 3rd (yes, you will have to space it out a bit).
The rush distances at their largest are very comparable to Shakuras Plateau. The same map MarineKing won a two Rax all-in against NesTea. My personal testing also concluded that early aggression is still very much a possibility. I really wish people would play the map before making such accusations.
I don't understand your second point at all. How are the thirds any less harassable than say, the third on Metalopolis, or the gold on LT? It's such a common criticism people make on these forums when maps don't have an "easy to take third" - seems there's no winning either way.
The middle isn't completely open. I'm not even going to respond to such hyperbole.
While I appreciate your concerns, the sheer amount of exaggeration in your post makes it hard for me to take all that seriously.
And I'm sorry for the delay, as there was a minor hiccup in getting this map on the US region - should happen later today. Thanks for waiting.
|
so has this been posted to the us server yet? if not PM me and ill do it b/c this needs some playtime nao.
|
On December 17 2010 03:30 SirDuke wrote:
so has this been posted to the us server yet? if not PM me and ill do it b/c this needs some playtime nao.
Spaced is now on the US server. Sorry it took a while but I thank you all for your patience.
Enjoy the map!
|
Awsome!! cant wait to test it out!!
|
On December 18 2010 01:59 funcmode wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 03:30 SirDuke wrote:
so has this been posted to the us server yet? if not PM me and ill do it b/c this needs some playtime nao. Spaced is now on the US server. Sorry it took a while but I thank you all for your patience. Enjoy the map!
I cant seem to find it on the US server. Its not under "spaced" or "space" blar maybe im just retarded.
|
On December 18 2010 02:39 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 01:59 funcmode wrote:On December 17 2010 03:30 SirDuke wrote:
so has this been posted to the us server yet? if not PM me and ill do it b/c this needs some playtime nao. Spaced is now on the US server. Sorry it took a while but I thank you all for your patience. Enjoy the map! I cant seem to find it on the US server. Its not under "spaced" or "space" blar maybe im just retarded.
Hmm.. that's not good news. If anyone else has the time to check quickly I'd really appreciate it as I can't verify it myself. Apparently the name "Spaced" was taken already so it should be called "Spaced by funcmode".
Will try and get this resolved ASAP.
|
It definitely looks like a fun map. Easy nat, easy third = I like!
Feels pretty balanced, there are ways that each race can spread their wings. Really like it!
|
On December 18 2010 02:49 funcmode wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 02:39 WniO wrote:On December 18 2010 01:59 funcmode wrote:On December 17 2010 03:30 SirDuke wrote:
so has this been posted to the us server yet? if not PM me and ill do it b/c this needs some playtime nao. Spaced is now on the US server. Sorry it took a while but I thank you all for your patience. Enjoy the map! I cant seem to find it on the US server. Its not under "spaced" or "space" blar maybe im just retarded. Hmm.. that's not good news. If anyone else has the time to check quickly I'd really appreciate it as I can't verify it myself. Apparently the name "Spaced" was taken already so it should be called "Spaced by funcmode". Will try and get this resolved ASAP.
Just tried searching. Couldn't find it. Perhaps it was published as private?
|
On December 18 2010 03:27 BoomStevo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 02:49 funcmode wrote:On December 18 2010 02:39 WniO wrote:On December 18 2010 01:59 funcmode wrote:On December 17 2010 03:30 SirDuke wrote:
so has this been posted to the us server yet? if not PM me and ill do it b/c this needs some playtime nao. Spaced is now on the US server. Sorry it took a while but I thank you all for your patience. Enjoy the map! I cant seem to find it on the US server. Its not under "spaced" or "space" blar maybe im just retarded. Hmm.. that's not good news. If anyone else has the time to check quickly I'd really appreciate it as I can't verify it myself. Apparently the name "Spaced" was taken already so it should be called "Spaced by funcmode". Will try and get this resolved ASAP. Just tried searching. Couldn't find it. Perhaps it was published as private?
I hadn't actually thought of that, seems like the most likely scenario. I'll get in touch with my collaborator and see if that's the problem. Thanks for the help
|
Someone had to bump this! It had dwindled all the way down to page 4...
I case you missed this map, I just want you to appreciate the purity of the design. A lot of us mappers have messy cliffing and texturing and we tend to plaster our maps with decals. This shows that less is more IMO.
Also, I´d like to see some replays. There´s some stuff I need to learn about the placement of nat & 3rd.
|
Agreed, this really was a brilliant map. Clean and simple, but very fun.
|
Oooo, neat. So far, this is the map I've picked to win the Map of te Month Tournament #1. It's a very nice setup. I like the design of the textures too. Good work and good luck in the tournament!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/c6lHp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/b6znB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/M6lF5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/At3Iu.jpg)
