|
|
|
Why the little ledge outside the natural, I remember seeing something on other iccup maps.
Other than that, yet another good map from the iccup team?
|
Is it just me or is the Top Spawns disadvantaged by the huge gap allowing banshees to sneak in and the bottom players never having to fear air from behind?
|
On December 22 2010 08:25 Retgery wrote:
Why the little ledge outside the natural, I remember seeing something on other iccup maps.
Other than that, yet another good map from the iccup team?
if you're talking about the ledge encircling the nat kind of it simply eases air harass and also doubles as an overlord hiding spot.
Is it just me or is the Top Spawns disadvantaged by the huge gap allowing banshees to sneak in and the bottom players never having to fear air from behind?
the map is 99.7%* positionally balanced (aside from rotational issues)
it's just how the editor spat the image out, right now the flying space is a bit less than it seems on the bottom for all locations (hence the probable widening that would probably already been in effect if it weren't such a hassle to get things republished on US  ).
*the 0.3 percent is the fact that mineral fields can't be the same all around but i doubt that will ever really come into play.
|
the map looks amazing. it kinda reminds me of neo harmony... i think??? (map where you have a base behind a xelnaga temple. (savior vs bisu ro26 msl i think... id know because that was the first match i've ever watched...)
anyways, the biggest pet peeve for all 4 player maps with that center of mass gold expansions is just terran mass PF there and then you just have 4 golds all to yourself. heck, they could waste a couple of PFs at the base of the ramps.
but all in all, great map.
|
^^if the terran has time and money to spam PF's everywhere, he already won.
Looks pretty good, I'm gonna try this out later tonight.
|
Those maps should be added to official map pool, tho I like the xel naga engine and I think it should be used (:
|
i love the design aside from the fact it seems like a tank contain would be far too easy to execute despite the wide ramp as you can shell part of the main base with some tanks at the same time as holding a player to 2 bases? any tests with this type of strategy involved
what i mean is that it also looks like the ramp might be in range from a tank or two which would be brutally annoying
is that the case?
|
On December 22 2010 10:45 Coramoor wrote:
i love the design aside from the fact it seems like a tank contain would be far too easy to execute despite the wide ramp as you can shell part of the main base with some tanks at the same time as holding a player to 2 bases? any tests with this type of strategy involved
what i mean is that it also looks like the ramp might be in range from a tank or two which would be brutally annoying
is that the case?
![[image loading]](http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/6840/terrain120.jpg)
Well contains can be somewhat of a bitch i guess but you'll have to expose the tanks quite a bit to get any sort of ramp coverage (you basically have to give the defender the highground like losttemple f.x.).
The alternate exit can't be tanked from the main wide one unless you start crawling down the ramp and get quite close to the nat.
Don't think you can get a total contain going too much easier than on most maps, you'll have to spread out and expose yourself quite a bit and lose a lot of the "contain enablers" such as the high ground you originally have.
We'll have to see how it goes but i've seen the contain get broken/backstabbed a time or two.
edit: second game on the list is a contain getting broken while failing a bit at trying to reposition.
|
On December 22 2010 10:15 aidnai wrote:
^^if the terran has time and money to spam PF's everywhere, he already won.
Looks pretty good, I'm gonna try this out later tonight.
maybe he has a couple of grand to waste??? but still, siege and static defence in the mid, gg.
|
On December 22 2010 11:06 Grebliv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 10:45 Coramoor wrote:
i love the design aside from the fact it seems like a tank contain would be far too easy to execute despite the wide ramp as you can shell part of the main base with some tanks at the same time as holding a player to 2 bases? any tests with this type of strategy involved
what i mean is that it also looks like the ramp might be in range from a tank or two which would be brutally annoying
is that the case? Well contains can be somewhat of a bitch i guess but you'll have to expose the tanks quite a bit to get any sort of ramp coverage (you basically have to give the defender the highground like losttemple f.x.). The alternate exit can't be tanked from the main wide one unless you start crawling down the ramp and get quite close to the nat. Don't think you can get a total contain going too much easier than on most maps, you'll have to spread out and expose yourself quite a bit and lose a lot of the "contain enablers" such as the high ground you originally have. We'll have to see how it goes but i've seen the contain get broken/backstabbed a time or two. edit: second game on the list is a contain getting broken while failing a bit at trying to reposition.
did not realize the main was actually that huge, thought it was much smaller, that seems to remove my main concerns
thanks
|
On December 22 2010 11:43 Coramoor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 11:06 Grebliv wrote:On December 22 2010 10:45 Coramoor wrote:
i love the design aside from the fact it seems like a tank contain would be far too easy to execute despite the wide ramp as you can shell part of the main base with some tanks at the same time as holding a player to 2 bases? any tests with this type of strategy involved
what i mean is that it also looks like the ramp might be in range from a tank or two which would be brutally annoying
is that the case? Well contains can be somewhat of a bitch i guess but you'll have to expose the tanks quite a bit to get any sort of ramp coverage (you basically have to give the defender the highground like losttemple f.x.). The alternate exit can't be tanked from the main wide one unless you start crawling down the ramp and get quite close to the nat. Don't think you can get a total contain going too much easier than on most maps, you'll have to spread out and expose yourself quite a bit and lose a lot of the "contain enablers" such as the high ground you originally have. We'll have to see how it goes but i've seen the contain get broken/backstabbed a time or two. edit: second game on the list is a contain getting broken while failing a bit at trying to reposition. did not realize the main was actually that huge, thought it was much smaller, that seems to remove my main concerns thanks
Yes, everything always looks a lot smaller in the overviews, espeically regarding tank range.
And the main is a bit bigish to account for that harder to defend wall instead of being on high ground.
|
ok, good textures as always, but as a whole almost all of iccup maps have the same center layout, where theres a center watchtower surrounded by 4 walls. not saying this is bad and hell it could be a motif, but it seems repetitive.
|
Looks great to me, although you've probably heard that before. I love the creativeness in the map layout! I would love to see it get more attention, definitely in the top of iCCup maps.
|
On December 22 2010 13:05 WniO wrote:
ok, good textures as always, but as a whole almost all of iccup maps have the same center layout, where theres a center watchtower surrounded by 4 walls. not saying this is bad and hell it could be a motif, but it seems repetitive.
Guess standardish rotational maps kind of end up having that kind of center rather often, some clutter to get rid of overly open ground. Plus this kind of becomes the usual xel'naga layout for them as well unless you lay down 4 of them which can be kind of an overkill. Something to keep in mind none the less I guess.
On December 22 2010 13:09 monitor wrote:
Looks great to me, although you've probably heard that before. I love the creativeness in the map layout! I would love to see it get more attention, definitely in the top of iCCup maps.
|
hello. sorry but can the publisher publish this map in SEA server. I would be very2 glad. thx.
|
On December 22 2010 13:05 WniO wrote:
ok, good textures as always, but as a whole almost all of iccup maps have the same center layout, where theres a center watchtower surrounded by 4 walls. not saying this is bad and hell it could be a motif, but it seems repetitive.
Rotational symmetry doesn't allow for a whole lot to change in the center without losing symmetry. And in an area like that, a few extra 2x2 squares that you can't walk through can completely change how the center of a map works. If you are going to do it without symmetry, you need to make sure you really nail it (Fighting Spirit is a good example of this)
|
After seeing MorroW give a shout-out to this map in his interview with iGrok I had to take a look. I really really like this map! Things that are especially cool to me include the rotational symmetry (which IMO isn't used nearly enough), the two exits from the natural and the way that gives the defender bigger potential for surrounds, and the multiple possibilities for expansions. I'd imagine cross-positions on this map would be a blast as far as controlling expansions goes.
Overall, well done!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/4844/eu2g.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D7NPb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9381/terrain113.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5223/terrain115.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9533/cubism.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4012/1iccupeuropaopenness.png)
![[image loading]](http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5843/1iccupeuropashortestpat.png)
![[image loading]](http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5843/1iccupeuropashortestpat.png)
