EPT[M] (2) Glacial Spike
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Slunk
Germany768 Posts
Very nice design though. | ||
|
forelmashi
421 Posts
| ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
Have never tested the watchtower + rock combination, so I have no idea how that will effect early gameplay, will be interesting to test (but the rocks limit early openness a bit, which is a plus). Never thought about using the terrain tools like that to do mountains/hills outside the map, that is a really good (and nice looking) idea! And the blue fog looks really atmospheric, I like that (also the minor details around the sides of the map, I never really got the hang of that last time, I think). Finally some critique on the texturing, it looks a bit one dimensional and rushed (but getting it done in time is better than nothing  ).It is good that you have chosen a separate texture style for the non-pathable cliffs, but I think you should have mixed in more different textures there too, from what I can see it looks like you've used the area fill tool a bit too much. A question though; why do you have so many weather doodads around the sides of the map? Seems a bit excessive. PS. MotM #1 will be very very interesting, wishing you good luck! | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
@ Slunk - I do not think that the middle is as large as you may believe. I think that Terran and Protoss will stand a good chance on this map, even in the middle. Two high yield expansions are ok, but on this map, I think that the one out farther away from the spawns should not be a high yield expansion because of how difficult it would be to scout and how it only comes into play later game. When I run into this on my maps, I usually put a nine mineral two gas expansion on the location that seems less likely to be a high yield expansion. The high ground expansions are a nice touch to this map, and something that I haven't seem in SCII maps that much yet. I really like the idea! Good luck for the MotM!  | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10568 Posts
Can a tank on the 4th high ground next to ur nat do damage to anything? id like to see the range. can the ledge directly out of the 3rd hit nething? | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
I would also move the raised 3rd/4ths slightly more into the center to make it slightly harder to sit on 4base and use the map space in a more balanced way. Just a little though. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
 | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
| ||
|
Koagel
Austria167 Posts
Keep it up! | ||
|
mangoloid
100 Posts
I am torn between seeing the map as a glacial spike or a yeti face. :/ Oh, are the spike areas pathable? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
KooKraw
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
mangoloid
100 Posts
You did a very good job making it feel glacial. Having an ice tileset would obviously be better, but I was impressed with the overall aesthetics while playing this map. However, having played around on it, I am now hesitant about the layout. I did not play a real game, so this is based on first impressions, but as I was wandering around the map trying to decide where important battle would take place, I felt that there was a lot of dead space, and that any given game would use only a very small section of the map, namely the shortest path between natural and natural. There is not much incentive to fight in the upper left portions of the map, and even tho players will be expanding there, they will probably feel most comfortably attacking towards the natural rather than towards the 3rd/4th, since all that space between naturals is so vulnerable to counters. I will have to see some real games played on this before I make my final judgment. Hopefully I can find some in the map of the month chat channel. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
| ||
|
sCnDiamond
Germany340 Posts
 . | ||
| ||
