|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag7va.png)
ESV Afterglow by monitor
Afterglow is really the first map I've seriously worked on and gotten close to finishing since Korhal Compound. I tried to focus on highground control, and how it plays a role in different areas of the map. As you look around you'll notice different ways map control play into expanding.
(4/20/12) - Version 1.3 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x30hN.jpg)
(4/5/12) - Version 1.1 Aesthetics by Timetwister
+ Show Spoiler +
Features
-Lowground third that encourages controlling part of the central highground.
-Highground center that can be used for positioning and map control
-Middle expansions for aggressive players and lategame expanding
-Small access expansions at the bottom of the map, out of the "war zone"
Information
Size: 144x116
Tileset: BelShir, Agria, Tarsonis, Xil
Players: 2
Main to Main: 50s
Natural to Natural: 44s
Brief explanations
No towers: This map is all about map control. For that reason, I chose to emphasize highground and lowground differences. A tower(s) was not necessary for any area; on highground, a tower would make contains to powerful; on lowground, a tower defeats the purpose of controlling highground.
No rocks: Everybody tends to hate rocks. Luckily there aren't any of those demons either. In the original version there were rocks places on the choke outside the natural to allow Protoss to hold the third expansion easier, but I decided they were unnecessary. If testing shows that it is imbalanced, rocks may be added.
Inspiration: I based this map's layout off of a brood war map, Acrid. I enhanced the concept to fit Starcraft 2 as best I could. The aesthetics for version 1.0 were based off of prodiG's remake of God's Garden from brood war. After I failed to make the aesthetics decent, I handed the map off to Timetwister to make version 1.1. He did a truly incredible job with them. In version 1.2 though, I decided to change the maps layout entirely and had to redo the aesthetics as a result.
+ Show Spoiler [Change Log] +
-Added XelNaga tower in middle
-Center expansions rotated 180 degrees
-Added rocks to third choke
-Ramp to third now 1x instead of 2x
-Added LoS blockers at the fourth, various texture improvements in center
-Map layout and aesthetics revamped
-Aesthetics revamped by Timetwister
-6 o'clock base removed
-Ramps adjusted at the fourth expansion and near the XelNaga Tower
-Highground barriers near the 1gas expansions extended
-Rocks added to the highground defending the third
Version 1.1 uploaded to NA and EU
|
your Country52797 Posts
It seems to me like you really have to have the highground above your natural or else you die.
Maybe that's just me :/
|
Canada1169 Posts
Yea it seems really difficult holding your natural when you have to hold attacks coming from above. Not sure how this will work out with say mid game when terran does a push that allows them to siege up in the high ground (after forcing zerg back) and all units zerg produces gets sieged
|
I don't think the natural is going to be a big issue. ZvP isn't an issue. In TvZ, the area above the natural is actually really open. Tanks on the highground can't hit anything in the natural either- I doubt pushes will be any stronger than on other maps (say for example Korhal Comp or Cloud Kingdom with tight areas outside the natural. I actually think PvT could be the biggest issue, with colossi breaking down bunkers at the natural. It could be really difficult for Terran to expand greedily like they usually do.
|
This looks pretty cool  I like how the upper path works, with the tower and the 1x ramps and all.
Obviously the highground in front of natural is quite experimental but I can see it work out well.
Only 4 and a half bases that you can realistically take isn't quite optimal but probably sufficient for most games to be good.
For the longest time I thought prodiG's aesthetics on God's Garden were the sexiest thing ever, so it's cool you used that
|
Upon first sight it had me, in many ways, thinking of Shakuras close air spawns but of course this is far more interesting. Like how you accounted for blink stalker plays into the main, putting LOS blockers up there.
The highground outside of natural is rather experimental, especially with no Towers giving direct sight of the rush path. Meaning that in TvZ a clever Terran could do a drop in the main and then quickly sprint to the nat to set up a midgame contain. But it seems pretty circumstantial and, possibly, entirely legitimate.
Intelligent use of the towers and rocks especially, and the small bases outside the naturals is a stroke of genius that I think (and hope) will become a common feature in good maps.
I really like it - it does feel more like a BW map and I think it will play out like one. I'm a fan of that.
|
On April 01 2012 21:35 Ragoo wrote:This looks pretty cool I like how the upper path works, with the tower and the 1x ramps and all. Obviously the highground in front of natural is quite experimental but I can see it work out well. Only 4 and a half bases that you can realistically take isn't quite optimal but probably sufficient for most games to be good. For the longest time I thought prodiG's aesthetics on God's Garden were the sexiest thing ever, so it's cool you used that
The lack of five bases (max is really 4.5 per player) is my biggest concern too. I am trying to figure out how to fix it- one of my ideas is to make the 6 oclock base an island expansion. It would really only be taken by zerg, but maybe that's a good thing.
On April 01 2012 22:11 SeinGalton wrote:
Upon first sight it had me, in many ways, thinking of Shakuras close air spawns but of course this is far more interesting. Like how you accounted for blink stalker plays into the main, putting LOS blockers up there.
The highground outside of natural is rather experimental, especially with no Towers giving direct sight of the rush path. Meaning that in TvZ a clever Terran could do a drop in the main and then quickly sprint to the nat to set up a midgame contain. But it seems pretty circumstantial and, possibly, entirely legitimate.
Intelligent use of the towers and rocks especially, and the small bases outside the naturals is a stroke of genius that I think (and hope) will become a common feature in good maps.
I really like it - it does feel more like a BW map and I think it will play out like one. I'm a fan of that.
Thank you!
|
Big OP update. Timetwister graciously gave his time and aesthetics skills to redo the aesthetics! A number of other changes, including:
-6 o'clock base removed
-Ramps adjusted at the fourth expansion and near the XelNaga Tower
-Highground barriers near the 1gas expansions extended
-Rocks added to the highground defending the third
I am still concerned that there may be too few bases. I'm looking for solutions.
|
|
|
i think there should be at least one neutral base, either at the top or the bottom
|
1-2 more bases are really needed here imo
|
|
|
On April 06 2012 13:07 monitor wrote:
I am still concerned that there may be too few bases. I'm looking for solutions.
What about a 12 o'clock base then?
|
I believe you could have bases at the 6 or 12 o'clock positions. I like the map overall though
I'm curious. @ the fourth base waterpool, can siege tanks cover the lowground from the highground?
|
Love the map. Just throwing ideas around, but what do you think of adding an elevation element to the center of the map? Like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CYOdW.jpg)
This change may not leave enough room for big engagements, but it does give a larger reward for holding the center of the map if the center is changed to a high ground. If the center becomes lower ground, your grasp of the center become more precarious. This might be desirable as countrol of the zel-naga tower may not allow for many unscouted flanking opportunities for the zerg once a strong center map presence is established. (I guess the top and bottom-most lanes are still available).
|
On April 06 2012 13:07 monitor wrote:
I am still concerned that there may be too few bases. I'm looking for solutions.
Just looking at it, I think you could fit a 6th base just south of the 5th in the middle.
If you converted the southern low-ground into a high-ground and blocked the ramps with rocks then that could open opportunities for attack via high-ground or siege tanks.
I'm assuming that the area between the main and 5th is unpathable. Leave it that way and you have a really cool effect where bases 2-4 are oriented north, but then your 5th and 6th are back to the other side of the map, and closer to your opponent.
|
|
|
On April 07 2012 02:29 slane04 wrote:Love the map. Just throwing ideas around, but what do you think of adding an elevation element to the center of the map? Like this: This change may not leave enough room for big engagements, but it does give a larger reward for holding the center of the map if the center is changed to a high ground. If the center becomes lower ground, your grasp of the center become more precarious. This might be desirable as countrol of the zel-naga tower may not allow for many unscouted flanking opportunities for the zerg once a strong center map presence is established. (I guess the top and bottom-most lanes are still available).
I think a highground center could really well, thanks for the suggestion. It'd encourage more highground control.
On April 07 2012 02:52 SpecFire wrote:
uh.. looks exactly like daybreak...
?? The only similarity I see that ties Afterglow to daybreak is the 1gas; you're right in that regard. But Afterglow is reflection symmetry, requires lots of highground map control to expand, has one tower seeing the attack paths, has a wide open middle, etc.
|
On April 07 2012 02:52 SpecFire wrote:
uh.. looks exactly like daybreak...
"exactly like"?
Not only is the map structurally dissimilar to Daybreak, but even on a purely superficial level of aesthetics, this map looks nothing like Daybreak. Perhaps I can jive with "sort of like" Daybreak in some respects. But even then, you don't list those specifics. What is the point of your post?
I like the layout as it seems to encourage expanding up the side of the map. This is pretty novel in terms of the current Blizz and tournament map pool.
|
On April 07 2012 02:52 SpecFire wrote:
uh.. looks exactly like daybreak...
Uhm no? Sorry, but your not really right about that. Center control is ALOT more impotent in this map, than Daybreak.
Really nice map Moniter, i just think i would like to see something else then these textures. Something like Ohana! Using different textures from all the other maps, would make your maps even more popular.
|
On April 07 2012 03:10 monitor wrote:?? The only similarity I see that ties Afterglow to daybreak is the 1gas; you're right in that regard. But Afterglow is reflection symmetry, requires lots of highground map control to expand, has one tower seeing the attack paths, has a wide open middle, etc.
I suppose it would be a pretty good idea at this point to sticky some sort of message, like a treatise on the similarity and structure of maps(or something along those lines), which stems from the necessary achievement of balance in a map. Something you learn as you get better as a mapper is that you can only really experiment in so many ways, much like when playing SC2 at a high level. Putting out a message like this, to act as a sort of announcement, could curtail this type of post, as well as enlighten some posters who don't quite understand the way things work yet. Having received these posts myself as well, I know it's a frustrating thing to experience.
On a side note, why does every map have to resemble daybreak? Goodness.
|
On April 06 2012 13:07 monitor wrote:
I am still concerned that there may be too few bases. I'm looking for solutions.
http://postimage.org/image/uk4by3v4t/
Would that work at all? The base between the ramps would have the gas in the middle to protect them a little. It does force you to keep your army in the middle though. The one at 12 o'clock meh...I don't like it at the bottom of the ramps, but it does make it a little more like your natural.
I dunno...just a thought.
|
I feel like the top of the map will be underused, because the attack paths are so far apart from the top.
|
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are.
|
On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are.
Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated.
I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth.
I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that.
|
|
|
On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that.
Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool?
|
|
|
On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool?
True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though
|
On April 09 2012 02:59 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool? True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though
Please don't raise/lower the central ground, I like the way it plays at the moment. It just needs more bases- from a Zerg perspective, you can never really get a true 'fifth', unless you have a massive lead.
|
On April 09 2012 04:16 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 02:59 monitor wrote:On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool? True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though Please don't raise/lower the central ground, I like the way it plays at the moment. It just needs more bases- from a Zerg perspective, you can never really get a true 'fifth', unless you have a massive lead.
I'm currently working on a bid update (and must say, I'm redoing the aesthetics because I'm changing so much) that will encorporate central highground that isn't too powerful, an extra expansion per player, and a non-lowground natural.
|
On April 09 2012 04:38 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:16 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 09 2012 02:59 monitor wrote:On April 09 2012 02:54 GamiKami wrote:On April 09 2012 00:25 monitor wrote:On April 08 2012 23:37 GamiKami wrote:
Some negative feedback, it feels like the bases are too small, especially the nat feels so tiny, to the point where I ran out of building room. Also something about this map feels unfinished and like you forgot something. Just my personal opinion but this doesn't feel like an ESV quality map, or even a map you would make. Feels kind of amateur. Not to bring any offense to you but that's just my 2 cents.
Seems fairly balanced from what I've played.
Also I think you should make it more visible and obvious where the unpathable and pathable areas of the middle are. Hmm.. I can understand where you're coming from, but more details would be much appreciated. I intended the expansions to be very small for a specific reason. On two bases, players are intended to build production buildings in their main- only defenses at the natural. On three bases, players are limited to the main, the choke at the third, and the highground between the nat and third. This is to require some highground control- similar to the fourth and fifth. I agree that the top and bottom paths are near useless at the moment- I'm working on an update to change that. Thing is, as a player I want to be able to think "I need more barracks" box some SCV's and spam barrack's on wherever im looking at, and not really have to worry about conserving space or playing tetris with my tech labs. In my opinion you have to be ridilously forceful to get the average player to utilise something like highground control. Are you making a map for some proes to play on or are you making a map to be put into the ladder pool? True. I can look at opening up some of the expansions. But imo, it isn't really necessary to let players "just box scvs and build wherever"- the place to build is in the main. I'll still make them more open though Please don't raise/lower the central ground, I like the way it plays at the moment. It just needs more bases- from a Zerg perspective, you can never really get a true 'fifth', unless you have a massive lead. I'm currently working on a bid update (and must say, I'm redoing the aesthetics because I'm changing so much) that will encorporate central highground that isn't too powerful, an extra expansion per player, and a non-lowground natural.
Yay! I despised the aesthetics- but that's just cause I like clean and nice, but Timetwister seems to adore the smattered terran
|
wow, ZvT will be so 1 sided here, just think of a contain on the high ground near the nat, a few bunkers and a couple of tanks and there will be needed ALOT to break it, all this while the terran can expo freely and harras some.
you should really think of maybe giving a back door to the main or moving the high ground further away to make contains just slightly less powerful.
|
I love the trees in this map, gives a Jap feel to it 
|
Okay I've worked up 3 different versions. Please leave comments and vote in the poll which is your favorite version! If you don't like any or want a mix between two versions, explain it!
Version a: One bottom base, full middle expansions, lowground middle, no rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Version b: One bottom base, half middle expansions, highground middle, no rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Version c: Two bottom bases, half middle expansions, lowground middle, rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Poll: Which is your favorite version?c (10) 71% a (2) 14% b (2) 14% 14 total votes Your vote: Which is your favorite version? (Vote): a
(Vote): b
(Vote): c
|
C, but widen the ramps into the middle lowground all the way to 5.
I actually realy like that layout.
|
On April 10 2012 01:48 wrl wrote:
C, but widen the ramps into the middle lowground all the way to 5.
I actually realy like that layout.
Hmm.. I am strongly leading towards A because I think it makes better use of the space and expansions. I also like being able to have full middle expos. On C, I sort of thought that considering how many expos there are in a small space, I should keep the middle expos half.
Part of my idea with the 2x ramps leading into the middle lowground was to force players to go around and use other parts of the map. I can certainly widen the ramps, but 5x would be everywhere else almost useless to engage imo.
|
I like B. I like the contested base...give something to fight over instead of splitting the map down the middle (like what would happen in C). I don't like A because cutting across the middle puts you at a disadvantage (you have low ground) so someone turtling up on their side of the map has a little more of a defenders advantage (which I don't like).
|
Of the versions you suggested, I would say C is the best. However, I feel that there are very few maps with a natural expansion that is on low ground. The first version of Afterglow was unique in that sense. If you do decide to change it, then I seriously hope that you make another map with that type of natural. It is something that hasn't been done that often before, but definitely deserves more attention.
|
On April 10 2012 10:09 Antares777 wrote:
Of the versions you suggested, I would say C is the best. However, I feel that there are very few maps with a natural expansion that is on low ground. The first version of Afterglow was unique in that sense. If you do decide to change it, then I seriously hope that you make another map with that type of natural. It is something that hasn't been done that often before, but definitely deserves more attention.
Good point. I was actually just thinking about that (I've been working on the map almost all day...). I might include the lowground natural on this map to reinforce the "control highground" concept. Also the middle is going to be highground.
|
Quick update. I've overhauled the aesthetics and done a mix between the layouts I posted above. The aesthetics are not finished on this image- particularly the middle has nothing.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6lV4O.jpg)
|
On April 12 2012 13:24 monitor wrote:Quick update. I've overhauled the aesthetics and done a mix between the layouts I posted above. The aesthetics are not finished on this image- particularly the middle has nothing.
*claps hands gleefully*
Much better, in every way.
|
It's sad that you took out the highground in front of natural part. That was fun. Did it not work out?
I like most of the map, except the expansion progression for the first four bases. It just seems very lame... like that has to be the most boring straight forward four bases ever.
|
Love the changes. Definetely gonna try this out when I get home. What are your thoughts on Zerg flanking opportunities against an entrenched Terran? I think the central area is large enough to allow Zerg to simply go around whatever area the siege tank line might conver. The map is too different from Antiga Shipyard and its central highground to know how things would play out.
Also at first glance, I thought that none of the bordering expansion looks particularly hard to hold and that this was bad. However, taking expansion along the border stretches your army quite thin. I like it.
Love the back entrance for reapers.
|
The new design brings clarity. However, it looks more "tiled" and amateur. Perhaps it's the sharp, geometric edges on the bricks. Or the very repetitive rock pattern at the very top of the map (12:00).
|
On April 13 2012 03:30 jdsowa wrote:
The new design brings clarity. However, it looks more "tiled" and amateur. Perhaps it's the sharp, geometric edges on the bricks. Or the very repetitive rock pattern at the very top of the map (12:00).
Okay, I can try to work on that. I really like the manmade sections because they are lined by some awesome decals ^^
This is what I'm trying out in the middle
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zzn1Q.jpg)
*Not published
|
Question: Do you foresee any problems with zerg having trouble securing a fifth? Or is that just one of the things a player has to be aware of in the map? I don't really think it makes or breaks the map, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
|
On April 13 2012 12:48 RumbleBadger wrote:
Question: Do you foresee any problems with zerg having trouble securing a fifth? Or is that just one of the things a player has to be aware of in the map? I don't really think it makes or breaks the map, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
In version 1.0 I was quite worried. In 1.2 I'm not too concerned because the 1-gas expansion is out of range of any units on the highground center and it isn't that close to the opponent. The lowground expansion at the bottom of the map can also be used as a 5th or 6th because it is really far out of the war zone (the top of the map is where most engagements happen so the lower expos aren't very much at risk).
|
OP Updated with version 1.3
-Added XelNaga tower in middle
-Center expansions rotated 180 degrees
-Added rocks to third choke
-Ramp to third now 1x instead of 2x
-Added LoS blockers at the fourth, various texture improvements in center
|
Yay Afterglow is in the Korean Weekly this week!
|
I feel like the very bottom expansions are a little squeezed in...is there enough space to the wall behind it? Why are all ramps so small?
|
From the few games on it I have seen so far today in the Korean Weekly I really like this map, good job!
|
On May 01 2012 06:56 Aunvilgod wrote:
I feel like the very bottom expansions are a little squeezed in...is there enough space to the wall behind it? Why are all ramps so small?
The ramps are small so that the expansions can be taken easily. The small ramps also make sentry drops and harass more effective.
On May 01 2012 10:49 Dodgin wrote:
From the few games on it I have seen so far today in the Korean Weekly I really like this map, good job!
Thank you! I really am enjoying watching them too!!
|
Canada1637 Posts
I like this map .
|
Congrats on winning MotM!
|
On May 01 2012 14:13 Adebisi wrote:I like this map .
Thank you!!
On May 02 2012 08:31 Heh_ wrote:
Congrats on winning MotM!
Thanks
|
Congrats. Aesthetics are awsome. You make me want to try a hand at making my own.
|
Hmm, seems like this map will really encourage positioning and posturing. I like that in a map.
I don't see anything really WRONG with it, and it looks kinda cool and fun to play. Good job.
|
If you want to check this map out, it's the map today for "ESV Map of the Day"! Grab a friend and try it out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FBBKk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/83GUa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gtDya.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FRjOX.jpg)
