|
Deception by prodiG
I present to you my second map after coming back from retirement. After seeing the wicked sick prizes in MotM, Cloud Kingdom getting into GSL Code A and S and hope for all foreigner mapmakers around I had to get another map done over my christmas holidays. Deception is based on a concept that I've been wanting to do for well over a year: A mashup of Destination and Match Point, some of the most ingenious Brood War map designs in the history of everything forever. I took some elements from each and put together what I feel is a very interesting map that I hope you will enjoy. The map is named after the song The Deceit by Fleshgod Apocalypse (on an absolutely fucking brilliant album, I might add).
Map is now published on NA as Deception - prodiG on the account prodiG - Please use this version!!!
Deception, like I mentioned above, is an effective mashup of Destination and Match Point from Brood War. Obviously each element had to be retrofitted for SC2 and this design itself, however I tried to keep as true to the originals as I could.
The main base features a back door blocked by wide destructible rocks as well as a relatively easy to defend natural expansion - both of these features stemming from Destination and Match Point respectively. The backdoor rock is sitting atop a line of LOS blockers to prevent warp-ins from reaching over the rock without vision. The natural expansion has a triple wide ramp (the same size as Antiga Shipyard) which is reasonably easy to wall off on its own, or can be walled with the standard ramp-town hall style if needed.
Next to the backdoor are what I designed to be effectively Destination's main base and natural expansion with the double bridges below. Obviously retrofitted for its position on the map, these expansions can be taken a number of different ways. I had originally intended for this map to be a 4 spawn map with forced cross positions but decided that this choice would net a better map overall.
Next up is the middle of the map. All high ground, like Match Point. One of the key features on that map were the high ground pods (Day9 did a Pair of dailies on both Match Point in BW and it's SC2 counterpart (ported by myself and Dyren no less ^^) in which he explains the inherent map control value of the high ground pods on Match Point. I feel as though I've emulated a similar effect here with the positioning of the third expansion, the ramps and particularly the Xel'Naga Towers which allow you to control a similar amount of space as the high ground pods did on Match Point. Above the middle is the expansions designed to play the role of the classic corner expansions on Match Point. A single chunk of destructible debris in the middle of the map emphasizes control of this Xel'Naga Tower in the early and mid game.
I wanted to revisit the aesthetic design I had come up with on (2v2) Citadel of Gaia and here I used the same tileset in a very similar way. I am very pleased with the way it came out :D
Info
Number of Players: 2
Map Size: 124x132
Tileset: Agria, Bel'Shir, Haven, Korhal (Same as (2v2) Citadel of Gaia
Main to Main (ramp): 47 (ingame seconds)
Nat to Nat: 36 (ingame seconds)
Number of Expansions: 12 Blue (all 8min/2gas)
Number of Xel'Naga Towers: 2
Published as: ESV Deception
Changelog
v1.1
-Added high ground near the 3 and 9 o'clock expansions to tighten them up and make them easier to defend
-Added a bridge blocked by destructible rocks to the lowground expansion at 12 and 6
+ Show Spoiler [why] +I wanted to improve the way the map flowed (flew?) with the lowground expansion as well as make the 3rd more defensible for Protoss, they should have a much easier time controlling the lowground next to the main at the 12/6 and simcitying the 3rd at 3/9
v1.0
First release!
My twitter - go here to see WIP map images and more ;D
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
|
You suck at retiring bro.
|
On January 09 2012 10:44 Diamond wrote:
You suck at retiring bro.
lil' bit.
Working on analyzer pics right now guys~
|
On January 09 2012 10:44 Diamond wrote:
You suck at retiring bro.
Quoting for truth.
|
im loving that a lot of these new maps are so different from what we've seen so far. this map looks really interesting with the rock placements
|
|
|
Kinda feels to me like it would be hard to defend both back and front bases. The path that goes around goes all the up into the middle. It doesn't seem like there's any good place to put your army once the back door rocks are down. Not a super well explored concept, though, so I can't really say for sure.
|
On January 09 2012 10:58 Gfire wrote:
Kinda feels to me like it would be hard to defend both back and front bases. The path that goes around goes all the up into the middle. It doesn't seem like there's any good place to put your army once the back door rocks are down. Not a super well explored concept, though, so I can't really say for sure.
Match Point had a similar "issue." Players dealt with it by maintaining a strong presence on the map and constantly pressuring expansions while moving their army around key points of the map. I don't think this map is any different in that regard
|
I really like how Deception influences players to expand in both directions, which will lead to some really interesting games. I do think that the area outside the natural is very open and could use an obstruction somewhere. Defending both your natural and the other side of the map is going to be very difficult though. You either have to move through the main to defend, or move through the middle, and to be honest, both take a good amount of time. I'd like to suggest a path between the low ground base hugging the main and the ground outside of the natural blocked by rocks. I think that would improve the army movement on the map a lot.
I'd also like to say that you did an amazing job at mixing two entirely different concepts together and create something functional, good job!
|
This is the greatest thing ever. prodiG, you already know how bad I wanted this!!
|
i think 2 base tank pushes where they siege up below the main would be way too strong, though it is a very cool concept
|
I actually wanted to see that thing BroodWar mapmakers did where they put 8 minerals blocking an expansion. Doesn't actually do much, but it's cute and it's nostalgic.
I also couldn't quite tell, but are those destructible rocks at the backdoor or just shrubbery?
|
On January 09 2012 12:40 EcstatiC wrote:
i think 2 base tank pushes where they siege up below the main would be way too strong, though it is a very cool concept
Where would you seige? The main is pretty friggen huge, you could VERY easily keep your buildings away from the edge if you're worried about that
On January 09 2012 13:00 Xarayezona wrote:
I actually wanted to see that thing BroodWar mapmakers did where they put 8 minerals blocking an expansion. Doesn't actually do much, but it's cute and it's nostalgic.
I also couldn't quite tell, but are those destructible rocks at the backdoor or just shrubbery?
Both! There's LOS blockers under the rocks to prevent Protoss from throwing a pylon down and warping onto the other side of the rocks without an observer or something. (If you still die to observer + pylon then you'd have died just as bad to Warp Prisms so that complaint is null and void IMO)
|
I love how this map turned out 
I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.
|
Very neat, as always.
My one complaint is that the backdoor kinda forces a player to take the third up against the main and then that nearby fourth and fifth to really be safe from the backdoor, but naturally a zerg player would like the clockwise third more, so it kinda throws off the zergy mojo a tad. But besides that, the map seems really neat.
Also, really curious as to how the third inset into the main will work out. It seems a little choky and hard to defend because the pathing from the natural to that base seems pretty long.
Actually, there's a lot of things with this map where the pathing is really interesting and I'm not sure how it will play out. No matter what, I think this map will produce some really interesting gameplay.
|
On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.
I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.
Maybe that's just me though,
|
On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps. Maybe that's just me though,
3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~
|
On January 09 2012 14:35 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps. Maybe that's just me though, 3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~
I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
My god, rocking up that cliff must have taken a hell of a lot of work. I'm thoroughly impressed.
|
On January 09 2012 14:43 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 14:35 prodiG wrote:On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:I love how this map turned out I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps. Maybe that's just me though, 3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~ I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though.
There's also the option of having a wider main ramp partially blocked by destructibles like on Crevasse, which can allow more army movement through in the later game (something which is underused imo.)
|
Oh wow this map looks really cool!
|
this map screams i love zerling runby's, not sure if destructible rocks allowing access to the main is such a good idea in most matchups
|
I like that you are never frightened to use cool features in your map. Bridges and those rly small ramps are a great way to discourage 1a deathball games : )
On the other hand I'm not a fan of the layout. Circle Syndrome :/ That backdoor is kinda unnecessary, if it wasn't there I would like the map a lot more.
Like right now I feel neither player will feel comfortable taking a base past the fourth.
I also think you could stretch the map out more.
|
On January 09 2012 22:07 Manimal_pro wrote:
this map screams i love zerling runby's, not sure if destructible rocks allowing access to the main is such a good idea in most matchups
If you get killed by a backdoor ling runby my money's on you didn't scout/prepare some kind of wall at the backdoor/have anything spotting the rocks so you can react. The rocks are the standard 2000hp 3 armor so it will take a combined one thousand unupgraded Zergling hits to destroy the rocks. That takes almost a full minute in-game, well enough time to react. I think backdoors are a pretty unexplored feature in SC2 since most players have nightmares from Blistering Sands but I say fuck'em ;D
On January 09 2012 22:14 Ragoo wrote:
I like that you are never frightened to use cool features in your map. Bridges and those rly small ramps are a great way to discourage 1a deathball games : )
On the other hand I'm not a fan of the layout. Circle Syndrome :/ That backdoor is kinda unnecessary, if it wasn't there I would like the map a lot more.
Like right now I feel neither player will feel comfortable taking a base past the fourth.
I also think you could stretch the map out more.
I don't think the circle sydrome on this map really works against it. The pathing is pretty unique so I don't think you'll see it play identical to every other 2p map out there. The backdoor is there because... well it's a half-pseudo-destination port and it wouldn't be destination without a backdoor! I also like the idea of taking a 4th by breaking down the rocks in some strange and interesting circumstances. Again as usual, backdoors need testing and if it's broke as hell and I can't think of a decent solution it will get the axe in favor of a few other ideas I have floating around in my head
|
When you publish this map (beautiful) on the European server? ^ ^
|
|
|
I don't like that it's impossible to move out of natural without being seen by the watchtower, or at least position looks like that's gonna happen.
And the base right next to opponents base seems a bit strange, for the player whose main is next to it, it's way too far to defend, and opponent can't really take a base that you can siege from your main either.
Backdoor, no thanks.
And as toss, I personally don't like a map where you can't Forge FE with 3 big buildings on ramp or do a nexus wall with 2 buildings.
|
I did not like the look of this map until I saw the angled overview, then I really like it. I strongly suggest putting it as the primary overview image, or at least have it in an spoiler instead of a link, it makes all the difference in the world.
|
From the overview, the 3rd bridge on the bottom half looks pathable, whereas the third bridge on top half is destroyed. Maybe put some kind of wreckage on the lower 3rd bridge to better communicate "hey, you can't go here" to the player.
Also, are there LOS blockers on both side of the rocks? It's kinda hard to see from the overview since it's not the best quality. If there are on both sides, wouldn't it be better to just have them on the outside so an attack is easier to spot? If they are just on the outside or beneath the rocks just ignore this.
I also really like Gfire's suggestion:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 09 2012 17:49 Gfire wrote:
There's also the option of having a wider main ramp partially blocked by destructibles like on Crevasse, which can allow more army movement through in the later game (something which is underused imo.)
Apart from that, really love the map, would really like to see some games on it.
|
You retire worse than I do lol.
Looks good man
|
Surely theres supportgroups for people like you. Mapmakers anonymous?
|
wouldn't tanks be able to destroy workers at the third from virtually any position along the highground in the centre? Looks pretty much in range and if that's possible there's gotta be a change.
|
The problem I see - but I could be wrong - is that this map has 'Blistering Sands Syndrome'. As we all remember; the problem with Blistering Sands was the distance between main and natural was shorter for the attacker than for the defender, so it was really hard to defend.
This map does not have BSS when you are on two base, but it seems that it does have that syndrome when you have three base. And that could be a big problem.
|
|
|
Barrin, we all knew from the beginning that this map has some nice and rather progressive approaches, but it is not yet polished enough.
what i think:
Once you go over two bases, army positioning to defend three and especially four bases the backdoor is awfull to defend. i mean it is nice a well known mapmaker is brave enough to put something up for the players and forces them to adept to something different, but the backdoor together with how late bases are set up do not work well i am afraid.
actually i waited all the time for someone bringing it up or say circle syndrom etc. the layout twist a lot and brings your late bases very close to your enemy. While you have two sides to defend, the map layout does not really promote expanding ccw.
the strange terrain that leads into the main hugging low base in order to defend the backdoor from the outside: strange.
then the visuals... with all due respect, but the look outdated already and rushed.
i think what the map tries is great, but what it achieves is already achieved by different other maps. for me there are too many gimmicks to be honest and many small issues.
so please, as much as we all like prodiG, lets be honest, this map is not great or super progressive, but a start that needs more work and polishing.
+ Show Spoiler +
personal opinion, yes. and i never claim what i write and analyse is objective, etc.
edit: after writing this post i realized some similarities to one old map of mine that does not have a backdoor, but bi-directional expansion options and i think with more experience i can remake it and make it more technical and solid. your map really motivated me to try that idea again without being afraid to be hit with a circle syndrom argument by Barrin or Ragoo  .
|
So, if you take a look at this picture, here is what I see.
[Map with some markings]
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TA9uF.jpg)
So, you expand (your main is the bottom left) to your nat, then to the base marked 3, then 4. The purple line from 4 to out front of your natural represents the 'front' if you will that would keep your expos safe (ignore the back door for now). Instead of patrolling your army along that line, which would be, well, weird, you take the high ground pod, around the watch tower circled in purple. That high ground pod is critical, just like it was in BW's Match Point. With the vision it provides, you can keep all of you expos (nat, 3rd, 4th) safe.
Now for the back door. In the early game, put a pylon by the rocks then wall off the ramp with gate ways and put up a cannon, who cares, just keep it safe. By the time you get to the mid-late game, where you have 4 bases and your army is at you high ground pod, there is a different reason that your main is safe from attack, or, why you are boned if you attack your enemies main. In the picture, imagine moving your army from your pod to A (the point above your 4th). Your enemy has his army a his pod, and now has two options: move along the lower red line, attacking your nat or third/running up into the main, or go for your 4th and trap your army in between the small ramp that is the backdoor and the bridge between your 4th and A. The second option put another way, is, the enemy moves to your 4th trapping you at A, if they can prevent you from getting up the ramp. Remember, the backdoor ramp to your enemies main is small. Getting a huge army up it isn't all that easy, and getting a small army up is no different than doing a drop, which happens all the time on all maps.
I marked the base 'C' because it seemed a bit odd to me at first. Why would you ever take it? I thought of it as a 3rd, or 4th, or whatever, but it makes you immensely vulnerable. Then I realized, it is not vulnerable if you control your opponents high ground pod. That is, after you have taken your side of the map, up to the base that I have marked as 4, you can push down and take your opponents high ground pod, securing C for yourself. That is, if you can beat his army there of course. Your opponent can then go out of his backdoor and try to kill your 4th or a possible base at A, but then you could kill his equivalent 4th and push his 3rd etc. Of course all these "the he could do this" is really just a way of saying that this map leads to many important decisions of great importance.
ProdiG, this map is awesome, I want to see pros play on it SO BAD. Keep of the GREAT work, you are the man, who in a year when SCII gameplay has evolved and everyone is playing on ESV maps, the community will thank for your hard work and the hard work of your team. And your guys' incredible ability to make badass maps.
I hope I explained everything clearly and didn't leave out any of the explanation I had in my head. If I did, tell me so I can correct it.
Edit: Trying to fix the image
|
The tiles don't work on the middle industrial part, looks too simple and not practical.
|
@Vilonis: After taking fourth you take over the second Xwt in order to expand to your base C? Seriously? Why not just kill third/fourth/fifth once you have both Xwt?
If the low base was a more regular base you could take it. Until then my argument is valid imho.
|
On January 10 2012 08:29 Samro225am wrote:
@Vilonis: After taking fourth you take over the second Xwt in order to expand to your base C? Seriously? Why not just kill third/fourth/fifth once you have both Xwt?
If the low base was a more regular base you could take it. Until then my argument is valid imho.
Let me get this straight... After a potential 5 bases (the 4 I numbered and the base at A), it is unreasonable to force a confrontation in the middle? How is that bad... in any way? In a way, it is like taking the bases in the top and bottom middle on Shakuras Plateau. You need to shut down the middle to make them safe.
Would these expos (C and its counterpart) be taken every game? No, but there are plenty of 'contested' expansions on maps that are rarely taken except in crazy games. Which is good because with all the choices available to you on this map, there will be some pretty crazy games.
Oh, and perhaps I overstated it. If your opponents high ground is contested, then C is safe. (By contested I mean that your army is on the top of the bridges leading to C but your oppent has a presence that stops you from wandering into his pod and killing his 3rd and 4th). This means that your opponent could still be hanging onto his 3rd and 4th, while, perhaps, pushing out of his backdoor so he can still put on pressure.
I maintain that this map is badass.
|
|
|
Very nice looking map. Congrats on your unretirement. I tried playing your map on NA, but could not play multiplayer for some reason. So, I wandered the map with blinkstalkers for 20 min.
Tech issues.
1. The lower R small bridge (which I believe is supposed to be impassable) has a glitch that allows stalkers to walk over it with a jumping glitch.
+ Show Spoiler +
2. you can blink/drop onto the landscape behind the mains
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
3. You can blink from 3rd to middle ground without vision up there. Maybe this intentional.(Correction, I had the tower controlled when I did this)
4. You can blink into the trees by third.
+ Show Spoiler +
Balance concerns
As P, I am terrified to take a 3rd. Two wide ramps to either 3rd and wide open air for mutas and medivacs. Outside of 2 base play, I don't see a lot for P. If you get some higher level replays, it would be great to see.
Excellent work coming from ESV!! Congrats.
PS sorry for the weird borders of the pics. photobucket editor not updating.
|
On January 10 2012 10:28 LostnFound wrote:
Very nice looking map. Congrats on your unretirement. I tried playing your map on NA, but could not play multiplayer for some reason. So, I wandered the map with blinkstalkers for 20 min.
Tech issues.
1. The lower R small bridge (which I believe is supposed to be impassable) has a glitch that allows stalkers to walk over it with a jumping glitch.
2. you can blink/drop onto the landscape behind the mains
3. You can blink from 3rd to middle ground without vision up there. Maybe this intentional.
Balance concerns
As P, I am terrified to take a 3rd. Two wide ramps to either 3rd and wide open air for mutas and medivacs. Outside of 2 base play, I don't see a lot for P. If you get some higher level replays, it would be great to see.
Excellent work coming from ESV!! Congrats.
...Can you show me screenshots of some of this stuff? I have pathing blockers on the landscape behind the mains so that shouldn't be happening, I was under the impression the bridge wasn't pathable but I blocked it anyway and the 3rd point doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me o_o
|
If the bottom player spawned at the right instead, the expansion layout is almost the same as destination kekekek xD
|
Looks good, the mains look like a (horizontal flip) Destination and the center looks like mini-Match Point
edit: except at a closer look the bridges aren't remotely close to being the nat =X
|
This map is available on the European server?
|
Sorry, there is the possibility to upload this map on EU servers?
I would love to try this map ......
thanks a lot!
|
Hi Prodig, do you think you could reupload this on NA? It is marked as only 1 player only, which makes it impossible to test/try out. Thank you!
|
This is a sick map can' wait to try it. Tons of routes to the opponents base which will make for some interesting dynamics. Also it just looks gorgeous.
|
On January 16 2012 14:53 joshie0808 wrote:
Hi Prodig, do you think you could reupload this on NA? It is marked as only 1 player only, which makes it impossible to test/try out. Thank you!
Fixed~ Thanks for point that out
|
The only thing holding back this map from becoming a classic is the backdoor rocks. I know you might think them
"unexplored" but backdoor rocks are just bad design imho..like the ledges on LT..THAT bad.
It's easy to see you put a lot of work into it and you are one of my favorite mapmakers..again imho takes more knowledge and patience than the game itself. Looking at high level players do all the things I already do doesn't excite me, whether you believe it or not..but making maps is an art I don't have the talents for. Props.
Again, really, I urge you to just simply take out the backdoor rocks. There's a reason blizzard stopped implementing them in the map pools (blistering, something valley ). Thanks for reading, cheers from Japan
|
wow this map is beautiful, hopefully it will be casted in gsl matches soon, would love to see that!
|
Please, you can load this map on EU servers ?????
|
G_Wen is a bawss and got it published on EU. Enjoy :D
|
v1.1 is up! Changes include a bridge blocked by rocks to the 12 and 6 oclock expansions to improve accessibilty and flow for the defending player as well as a more choked third to make it more defensible and able to be simcitied.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6e90C.jpg)
|
hey,
I really liked your map from the looks of it! but when i wanted to tray it with a couple of buddys, it just wouldnt work!
I am playing on EU, and I can create a game, and other can join, however, it was not possible to set the game to 1-1 or melee or anything but custom. And on the default settings, the maps had only one player :-*(
|
On February 22 2012 04:21 qwertzi wrote:
hey,
I really liked your map from the looks of it! but when i wanted to tray it with a couple of buddys, it just wouldnt work!
I am playing on EU, and I can create a game, and other can join, however, it was not possible to set the game to 1-1 or melee or anything but custom. And on the default settings, the maps had only one player :-*(
...I thought I fixed that? I'll look into it
EDIT: Just have the unfixed version on EU atm, I'll get the fix up asap 8)
|
On February 22 2012 07:18 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 04:21 qwertzi wrote:
hey,
I really liked your map from the looks of it! but when i wanted to tray it with a couple of buddys, it just wouldnt work!
I am playing on EU, and I can create a game, and other can join, however, it was not possible to set the game to 1-1 or melee or anything but custom. And on the default settings, the maps had only one player :-*(
...I thought I fixed that? I'll look into it EDIT: Just have the unfixed version on EU atm, I'll get the fix up asap 8)
awesome man!
I really enjoy you guys maps! thanks!
|
Map is now published on NA, EU, SEA and KR under the name ESV Deception 1.1 on the account ESVMaps - Please use this version!!!
Let me know if you run into any bugs or other issues!
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
Hi prodiG, I'm a big fan of your mapmaking, and I thought I'd give this map a try, but I wasn't able to find it on NA. has it been taken down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yKrch.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OEEyB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lYiON.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cpJFW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/obts1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OQyvK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yUfyG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SEAD3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1261.photobucket.com/albums/ii586/LostnFound72/bridgeglitch.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1261.photobucket.com/albums/ii586/LostnFound72/blinktobackwoods.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1261.photobucket.com/albums/ii586/LostnFound72/blinktobackwoods2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1261.photobucket.com/albums/ii586/LostnFound72/blinkintowoodsatthird.jpg)
