|
very, very nice map. i totally like the layout of the possible expansions.
on the visual side I love the way you created something individual with simple cliff-"brushwork".
some spots look too tight though - I cannot play the map, i try to understand it just from looking - nat to third is quite a long and narrow choke. also the central highground could be more open with only one tower. also i am unsure about the gold being so difficult to hold once you do not have complete control over centre. it looks like only one player can have it actually, but I guess you guys tested the map well and it works 
|
Sure!
I don't see why not, since I'm quite sure more than me would want to get their hands on this one!
I'll pm you my email.
|
On December 27 2010 04:50 Samro225am wrote:very, very nice map. i totally like the layout of the possible expansions. on the visual side I love the way you created something individual with simple cliff-"brushwork". some spots look too tight though - I cannot play the map, i try to understand it just from looking - nat to third is quite a long and narrow choke. also the central highground could be more open with only one tower. also i am unsure about the gold being so difficult to hold once you do not have complete control over centre. it looks like only one player can have it actually, but I guess you guys tested the map well and it works
Yeah, it works just the way it is supposed to. In-game, the choke to the third is not very long. It has not proved to be a problem (even in a 200/200 battle), more of a strategic area.
|
|
|
On December 27 2010 07:16 baskerville wrote:
no angled pictures...?
Good point, I'll stick in an angled overview.
|
i really like it.
really really like it.
great work
|
On December 27 2010 07:42 MavercK wrote:
i really like it.
really really like it.
great work
Hey thanks!
I added a Low Quality overview (sorry, hard to get a high quality) to the thread.
|
I don't quite understand the 1-gas expansion. I think the 1-gas expo is somewhat equivalent to a mineral-only expo in BW, but a mineral-only expo usually represented a low-risk, low-reward base. With that said, the placement of your 1-gas expo doesn't feel low-risk to me. It is close to the center, near the main attack path, and spotted by a watchtower. I feel as if the corner base would be taken as a third and for a fourth I would most likely take the gold expansion outside of my third. The gold represents nearly the same risks but gives a higher reward while protecting the entrance to my third.
The center is tight. I'm glad you removed the extraneous LOS blockers.
Aesthetically, I think it could use some work. From the top-down view my biggest concern is the sameness of each space. The same textures are used throughout which makes it difficult to distinguish the different spaces. Upon closer inspection I think you could tighten up the 'jigsaw' effect of the textures better by making them line up more naturally. And while I'm nitpicking, you have asteroids placed around the edges which are high up. With air units in these areas they can fly through or below the asteroids.
|
On December 27 2010 07:56 BoomStevo wrote:
I don't quite understand the 1-gas expansion. I think the 1-gas expo is somewhat equivalent to a mineral-only expo in BW, but a mineral-only expo usually represented a low-risk, low-reward base. With that said, the placement of your 1-gas expo doesn't feel low-risk to me. It is close to the center, near the main attack path, and spotted by a watchtower. I feel as if the corner base would be taken as a third and for a fourth I would most likely take the gold expansion outside of my third. The gold represents nearly the same risks but gives a higher reward while protecting the entrance to my third.
The center is tight. I'm glad you removed the extraneous LOS blockers.
Aesthetically, I think it could use some work. From the top-down view my biggest concern is the sameness of each space. The same textures are used throughout which makes it difficult to distinguish the different spaces. Upon closer inspection I think you could tighten up the 'jigsaw' effect of the textures better by making them line up more naturally. And while I'm nitpicking, you have asteroids placed around the edges which are high up. With air units in these areas they can fly through or below the asteroids.
The 1gas expo is there for a specific reason. When containing, which is pretty easy, if it had 2gas, it'd be too powerful. I needed to keep contains balanced.
I've heard positive and negatives about the aesthetics. Somewhat I agree that from the overview it is hard to distinguish areas, but in-game its really not.
The high up asteroids are outside of the map bounds last I checked, but I can check again.
|
As far as the textures go, they could be really improved by simply tightening them up. Particularly the small "grid" texture, making its bounds on the edges of the squares themselves would make them nicer. But to be honest that texture doesn't quite fit anyways.
I do like that you used the avernus plates texture well. its a hard one to do so.
|
the design looks really good monitor. i think the texturing needs more contrast to make the map really shine though. too much of the same imo.
|
On December 27 2010 10:29 WniO wrote:
the design looks really good monitor. i think the texturing needs more contrast to make the map really shine though. too much of the same imo.
Okay, thanks!
I'll take a look at the aesthetics more, hopefully clean them up. In-game, they're looking fine, have you seen them? Let me know.
|
OP updated with a new image. Seen here:
+ Show Spoiler +
iCCup Pawn 2.0 Changes:
-HY 1x ramp replaced with low ground path
-textures sharpened, exaggerated
-center high ground removed
-3rds moved closer to center
|
The updated version is now up on eu.
|
the map looks really fucking amazing im gonna play on right now.. if only blizzard would try using theese maps..
i cant find this on eu ?
|
very nice, If i had to make one change it would be to spread the bases a little more out. If you look at the pathing lines, you can see there are too many bases on it, or just off the beaten path. Giving zerg really only 1 safe place for a third base.
I'd at the least move the 13k bases North and South respectively, into that open space behind them.
|
On December 30 2010 07:47 SpoR wrote:
very nice, If i had to make one change it would be to spread the bases a little more out. If you look at the pathing lines, you can see there are too many bases on it, or just off the beaten path. Giving zerg really only 1 safe place for a third base.
I'd at the least move the 13k bases North and South respectively, into that open space behind them.
I think the bases are fine from testing.
I've made a couple revisions to 2.0, and the HY is pushed into the center more. I've also opened up numerous chokes (not naturals), and cleaned textures a bit more. Seen here:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 30 2010 07:26 MadZ wrote:
the map looks really fucking amazing im gonna play on right now.. if only blizzard would try using theese maps..
i cant find this on eu ?
Should be up, 2-_-n published it as far as I know.
|
that choke into the HY looks better open.
|
On December 30 2010 08:03 iGrok wrote:
that choke into the HY looks better open.
The problem in testing was the choked up areas of the map. There were too many chokes, so I had to open it up. By doing this, it also made the center smaller, promoting the side expansion game play that it was originally meant to have. The HY is also harder to defend now, because its closer to the rush path to your enemy. It'll be scouted more often and harassed earlier. The openness also makes it harder to hold without the small choke point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pL5rL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/evpxn.jpg)
