| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HE2hB.jpg) Map overview ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/88IJk.jpg) Crux GSL Whirlwind Created by Crux_Winpark(=WinparkPrime) Suggest players 2-4 Playable 160 X 160 Published KR(GSL_돌개바람)/NA,EU(GSL Whirlwind) In 2012 GSTL Season 2 http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/ TeamCrux.tistory.com www.SC2Prime.com Twitter: @WinparkPrime | ||
|
Zaphid
Czech Republic1860 Posts
| ||
|
Kmatt
United States1019 Posts
| ||
|
Shiger
Sweden118 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
| ||
|
ScorpSCII
Denmark499 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I am torn about the little hole between the natural and 3rd. Without it, it's far too open. With it, it makes it really hard for zerg to engage in the late game. I think it might be better to use a small clump of doodads here instead, like a line of trees. Maybe even something destructible, like overlapping small rocks (or a custom destructible object). The rest of the map seems fine for chokiness. Very nice decision to have LosB at 3,6,9,12 in the middle, providing open space for big engagements but preserving the danger of rounding those obstructing arms. Nice work!! | ||
|
Happystreet
550 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On April 08 2012 03:30 winpark wrote: IronManSc, That is too fixed idea... I don't want to make an imitation.. I agree. I think making the base on lowground would actually make it a bit too standard. | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
Edit- Already on NA! My life is complete | ||
|
AnalyZ
France32 Posts
| ||
|
PolskaGora
United States547 Posts
| ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 08 2012 02:18 Barrin wrote: Excellent concept, excellent execution for 8m. Perhaps the concept would fit better with 6m (needs some choke resizing for 6m), but I really love the way it is now for 8m anyway. 10/10, my new favorite 8m map. can you please stop spamming every map thread with variations on "it would fit better with 6m." It's really, really annoying. If you can't appreciate and comment on the maps for what they are, but rather what you wish they would be, maybe you shouldn't comment at all. | ||
|
Grohg
United States243 Posts
On April 08 2012 02:18 Barrin wrote: Excellent concept, excellent execution for 8m. Perhaps the concept would fit better with 6m (needs some choke resizing for 6m), but I really love the way it is now for 8m anyway. 10/10, my new favorite 8m map. I think you need to stop littering every map thread with your 6m concept. It's a cool idea but the game isn't moving that direction in earnest. You're promoting yourself every time I see you post now...please, let people focus on the map that was made, not a hypothetical version that would tickle your fancy more. It's a holier-than-thou type feeling that you're exhibiting now and I don't think you want that image. This map looks solid...the first four bases seem quite easy to hold, however. Would a base on the low ground be better at the 4th? Attacking up ramps for every base there makes it a difficult nut to crack. This might not be the case but I can see siege tanks on both the 3rd and 4th base ramps making Terran's main-4th hard to touch. The caverns in the middle of the map are good for creating some chokes but there are enough attack paths to allow Zerg to flank and counter. FF should still be strong in each corridor as well so Protoss armies aren't simply overrun in PvT or PvZ with mass bio/roaches. I like the layout overall...it's good to see some new maps like this addressing a lot of the problems previous maps have had. The choke/openness seems just about right and I think that might be the biggest thing most maps have issues with now. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
When I saw the map I thought great, this is a very standard 4p rotational, overall very solid, just maybe a bit too easy to expand. So I thought this was pretty great for 6m cos you want bases to be a bit easier to take with that concept. And that's what I also said to Barrin^^ So stop hating on him, he is not the only one who thinks like this about this map. + Show Spoiler + I am not a convinced supporter of 6m, I think it's too hard to theorycraft about it... Nice job winpark! As I said, very solid, good positional balance, nice aesthetics. Maybe just a bit easy to expand and not very innovative. But I still like it, one of the best 4p rotational maps  | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 08 2012 06:37 Ragoo wrote: @the two people before me: When I saw the map I thought great, this is a very standard 4p rotational, overall very solid, just maybe a bit too easy to expand. So I thought this was pretty great for 6m cos you want bases to be a bit easier to take with that concept. And that's what I also said to Barrin^^ So stop hating on him, he is not the only one who thinks like this about this map. who's hating anybody? It's just not relevant to the thread and seeing it brought up again and again is annoying. If Barrin wants the Crux guys to make 6m maps, maybe he should PM/mail and ask them instead of bringing it up in threads that aren't about the subject. It's extra tiresome because 6m isn't in any way a proven concept, certainly not going by the replays released so far, and I'd even say it's an inherently flawed idea for a number of reasons not related to this thread. | ||
|
PolskaGora
United States547 Posts
Doing a FFE.... + Show Spoiler [FFE Wall-In] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b28Jf.png?1?2732) The bottom ramp works moderately well with a FFE. Especially interesting is the double neutral supply depot, one at the the bottom of the ramp to the main, one on the top of the ramp to the natural. This definitely helps out with a FFE, since it obviously means you need one structure less to finish the wall-off. While we're on the subject of pylon placement, the pylon can be placed in a position to finish the wall-off with a zealot. However, your zealot placement must be perfect since it is essentially the maximum amount of space allowable before lings can squeeze through. This means that lings can get very good surface area on the blocking zealot. As a result, I would probably recommend that people should finish the wall-in completely with a second cannon as shown below, and simply break down the neutral supply depot when ready to move out. You can also place the cybernetics core in a way so that it can't be hit by roaches while also providing a secondary wall-in should they destroy the neutral supply depot walling you in. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mktFo.png?1?7383) When it comes to the FFE concept I line out in a post above... + Show Spoiler [FFE Wall-In #2] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YOj3G.png?1?1716) No, simply no. Forget I even mentioned it. Lol, when I thought of this idea I hadn't taken into account that the map was so big. As you can see, any zerg player can easily run by with no risk at all for reasons that are obvious and won't bother explaining. However, I do believe that in the late game when trying to expand to 5+ bases AKA when trying to expand to the other wings on this map, such a concept could be effectively used to block off aggression and ling run-bys and therefore essentially lock down a whole new 3 bases for you. Placing down a lot of gates and cannons will be especially easy with all the mineral excess you will probably be banking at that point. Finally, as to the tank concept I also lined out in a post above.... + Show Spoiler [Tank Placement] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oioIG.png?1?6978) This is the first image, where I sieged tanks on the ramps leading to the two 3rds, three tanks on the low ground and a tank on the ramp leading to the natural. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5JJ9o.png?1?8755) This is the same site, however I only kept the tanks on the high ground of the the two 3rds sieged in order to get a better understanding of how far the tanks can reach into the choke between 3rds. Using this information, terran players can better understand how to place tanks strategically when playing TvZ and TvT. I'm no terran player so my tank placement probably isn't optimal or maybe even very strategically sound but it looks to me that if terrans siege up in a similar fashion, especially with more than the ten tanks I used in this picture, they can very easily defend any pushes directly into the main entrance/choke, especially vs a ling/bling composition. + Show Spoiler [Further analysis of tank placement] + If the terran uses planetary fortresses to defend the 3rd placed away from the main it will make it that much easier for the terran player to set up tanks on that high ground and not have to worry about ling flanks. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Jwib.png?2) However, the 3rd that's directly underneath the main has a mineral field at which a planetary fortress's range isn't large enough to cover the tanks, so additional defense will be required there, as seen below. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q4yVj.png?1?7486) Lings will simply be able to do a quick hit-and-run, with no repercussions from the planetary. Maybe planetary fortress range will provide enough coverage to secure this tank placement, although it probably won't be. Siege tanks have a range of 13 while an upgraded planetary fortress has a range of 7, so judging it visually the planetary will only be able to hit enemy units that are closer than half the distance to the tanks. Not enough. Perhaps a forward planetary at the top of that ramp can be an alternative, not sure if that's the most efficient answer though. + Show Spoiler + I suppose if you clicked this spoiler this means you took the initiative to read through this whole post so thank you! In conclusion, I really love this map! It seems very balanced for the most part. Protoss has a viable FFE and easy enough transition to grab a third, the large size of the map allows zerg to quickly expand to either of the thirds furthest away from the opponent while feeling safe at the same time, and tank placement can be very effective on this map. In fact, I would argue that siege tanks make the main entrance/choke to the terran player's wing too easy to defend, especially when tied in with good planetary/bunker placement. As a result, the only thing I would change is make one of the two third bases unelevated, so that there is no high ground advantage defending it. This still allows zerg a relatively easy expansion and could also lead players to choose more strategically as to which of the thirds to expand to first. Great job, I definitely think we will be seeing this map in future tournament map pools soon! | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
On April 08 2012 05:31 Quotidian wrote: can you please stop spamming every map thread with variations on "it would fit better with 6m." It's really, really annoying. If you can't appreciate and comment on the maps for what they are, but rather what you wish they would be, maybe you shouldn't comment at all. Can you please stop posting about someone posting? It's getting really, really annoying. I'm serious though... Do you realize how silly you look by posting about someone posting? Who cares if he talks about his FRB idea in every map thread. You don't have to read his comments, nor do you have to post about it... but for some asinine reason, you did both. Anyway - This map is pretty bad ass. One of few new maps (recently) where I actually saw it and thought to myself "Wow, this is pretty cool looking..." Can't wait to see it in GSTL (and/or GSL). | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
On April 08 2012 06:56 Quotidian wrote: who's hating anybody? It's just not relevant to the thread and seeing it brought up again and again is annoying. If Barrin wants the Crux guys to make 6m maps, maybe he should PM/mail and ask them instead of bringing it up in threads that aren't about the subject. It's extra tiresome because 6m isn't in any way a proven concept, certainly not going by the replays released so far, and I'd even say it's an inherently flawed idea for a number of reasons not related to this thread. And you're being JUST AS annoying as you think he is by posting about it. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
Anyway, beautiful map, so many pathways which really excites me  | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
Tosster
Poland299 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On April 08 2012 16:51 -NegativeZero- wrote: This would make an excellent replacement for Tal'Darim Altar on the ladder. I never thought of that, but that's a great idea. | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 08 2012 16:51 -NegativeZero- wrote: This would make an excellent replacement for Tal'Darim Altar on the ladder. It would be better as a replacement for Antiga in my opinion | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
| ||
|
avc
121 Posts
I'd like to see the thirds changed to low ground bases I think, or if they must stay high, then open up the choke a lot wider. Have a feeling we might be seeing a lot of this map in the future. | ||
|
wrl
United States209 Posts
'Oh, its impossible to balance the thirds on a 4p rotational map? Just make them IDENTICAL' I'm sure hte map plays fine, probably very well in fact, but there is absolutely nothing new or innovative about it. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
winthrop
Hong Kong956 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 10 2012 02:20 Sated wrote: That doesn't change the fact that everyone is aware of 6m and doesn't need it spammed in every map thread. No, everyone isn't aware. With the widespread praise the idea has been getting, it's only amongst those who know about it, so if it was truly a popular idea, you'd be seeing a lot more discussion about it, and possibly even tournaments. If Barrin wants to make a post here and there promoting the idea, there's nothing wrong with it. You criticize the posts he's making as though he's promoting some useless product that nobody uses - that's the wrong way to look at it. What he's doing is promoting an idea that could very well make this game a lot more fun to play, as well as watch. Thinking of it that way, he may not be talking about it enough. edit: ^^this is directed at everyone who's been making this sort of post, not just the above poster. edit2: I really wish this thread hadn't been so derailed, such that the map gets buried under people bickering over Barrin's posts. If you would, please direct your attention to the damn map in the OP, please | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
(not sure you realize how much time I spent thinking about it, I couldn't even keep it contained even before it went public) Since you kept going OT in this thread, yes, you've obviously spent too much time thinking about it. You've convinced yourself that "FRB" is the correct way for the game to go, even before any real testing has been done, and the"FRB" games shown so far don't seem to be any more inherently interesting or different than standard games. Your theory also has holes in it, because we're actually seeing the type of small scale engagements you want to promote in standard games without the need to change anything as far as resource nodes go. On top of that "FRB" doesn't do anything to address issues of unit design or unit clumping, which is the real clincher as to why SC2 games look the way they look. So all in all, I see no reason why the game should move towards fewer resources at all. There's no good reason to. Seriously, if you weren't a mod, you would probably have been warned/temp'ed for spamming/going OT in threads when there already are multiple threads on the subject on TL. | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
On April 10 2012 05:19 Quotidian wrote: Since you kept going OT in this thread, yes, you've obviously spent too much time thinking about it. You've convinced yourself that "FRB" is the correct way for the game to go, even before any real testing has been done, and the"FRB" games shown so far don't seem to be any more inherently interesting or different than standard games. Your theory also has holes in it, because we're actually seeing the type of small scale engagements you want to promote in standard games without the need to change anything as far as resource nodes go. On top of that "FRB" doesn't do anything to address issues of unit design or unit clumping, which is the real clincher as to why SC2 games look the way they look. So all in all, I see no reason why the game should move towards fewer resources at all. There's no good reason to. Seriously, if you weren't a mod, you would probably have been warned/temp'ed for spamming/going OT in threads when there already are multiple threads on the subject on TL. Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I just went through Barrin's posts, and this is the first map he has mentioned would be a good 6m map. So what it sounds like to me is that you have some sort of personal reason against Barrin for continuing this nonsense, or you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and just want to troll. | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 10 2012 05:57 hoby2000 wrote: Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I just went through Barrin's posts, and this is the first map he has mentioned would be a good 6m map. So what it sounds like to me is that you have some sort of personal reason against Barrin for continuing this nonsense, or you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and just want to troll. and what a fine piece of research you did http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=310713#15 | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 10 2012 06:16 Quotidian wrote: and what a fine piece of research you did http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=310713#15 Seriously, it's been said before, only now it's more so: you've become infinitely more obnoxious than Barrin could ever have been, even for someone agreeing with your views. Now you're just beginning to look like a troll who got bored with the Blizzard forums. | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 10 2012 07:11 NewSunshine wrote: Seriously, it's been said before, only now it's more so: you've become infinitely more obnoxious than Barrin could ever have been, even for someone agreeing with your views. Now you're just beginning to look like a troll who got bored with the Blizzard forums. well, that's just your opinion, isn't it.. You know one of the things that characterizes the blizzard forums? People labeling everyone they don't agree with as trolls. Seriously, if everyone who made a post/thread about "their idea" started posting in other threads not about "their idea," the mods would probably start banning these people as quickly as they ban image macros or balance whine.Just because you have "an idea" it shouldn't give you carte blanche to spam in other people's threads.I suspect Barrin only gets away with it because he's a mod and for some reason people have blindly latched onto an unproven idea. I am seriously not trolling Barrin -- why would I? I've never even had an exchange with him before. From what I've been saying, I thought my motives for criticizing him were immediately obvious. I have no other agenda here except to tell him to stop spamming his idea around the forum when there are already threads dedicated to the topic. If I came off as rude* or whatever before, yeah, I can see why and I'll change my tone from now on. So yeah, Barrin, please stop spamming your idea outside of the thread(s) dedicated to it. It's not a cool way to behave. (*imo, jumping into a thread with "this would be better if it conformed to My Idea" is also disrespectful behavior) | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
On April 10 2012 08:08 Quotidian wrote: well, that's just your opinion, isn't it.. You know one of the things that characterizes the blizzard forums? People labeling everyone they don't agree with as trolls. Seriously, if everyone who made a post/thread about "their idea" started posting in other threads not about "their idea," the mods would probably start banning these people as quickly as they ban image macros or balance whine.Just because you have "an idea" it shouldn't give you carte blanche to spam in other people's threads.I suspect Barrin only gets away with it because he's a mod and for some reason people have blindly latched onto an unproven idea. I am seriously not trolling Barrin -- why would I? I've never even had an exchange with him before. From what I've been saying, I thought my motives for criticizing him were immediately obvious. I have no other agenda here except to tell him to stop spamming his idea around the forum when there are already threads dedicated to the topic. If I came off as rude* or whatever before, yeah, I can see why and I'll change my tone from now on. So yeah, Barrin, please stop spamming your idea outside of the thread(s) dedicated to it. It's not a cool way to behave. (*imo, jumping into a thread with "this would be better if it conformed to My Idea" is also disrespectful behavior) Your like those people that sulk about spoilers, just get over it, he can post whatever he likes, hes not breaking any rules, so just shoosh and get on with it, because I support Barrin's idea and I have personally played FRB and its the most enjoyment I have got out of Starcraft 2. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 10 2012 08:08 Quotidian wrote: well, that's just your opinion, isn't it.. Well, no, it isn't just mine, clearly. On April 10 2012 08:08 Quotidian wrote: I am seriously not trolling Barrin -- why would I? I've never even had an exchange with him before. From what I've been saying, I thought my motives for criticizing him were immediately obvious. I have no other agenda here except to tell him to stop spamming his idea around the forum when there are already threads dedicated to the topic. If I came off as rude* or whatever before, yeah, I can see why and I'll change my tone from now on. So yeah, Barrin, please stop spamming your idea outside of the thread(s) dedicated to it. It's not a cool way to behave. (*imo, jumping into a thread with "this would be better if it conformed to My Idea" is also disrespectful behavior) So far, 2 threads, if I'm not mistaken, where he's mentioned it, beside the main discussion thread, so I wouldn't call it spamming. Two. And besides, who are you to try and silence someone, especially someone who's put so much thought, not to mention faith, in his own idea? Maybe you could, if he were trying to revive the nazi regime with a new elaborate plan, for instance, but I digress. That is not a cool way to behave. It doesn't matter whether or not he's right. Carry on any further, and you seriously are a troll. This has nothing to do with you and I agreeing, so don't pull that card out either. Frankly, I never get this animated about a topic on the Blizzard forums, because it's never worth it, but I'd like to think we should be held to a higher standard here, so pardon me if I come off as rude. | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
On April 10 2012 09:50 NewSunshine wrote: Well, no, it isn't just mine, clearly. So far, 2 threads, if I'm not mistaken, where he's mentioned it, beside the main discussion thread, so I wouldn't call it spamming. Two. And besides, who are you to try and silence someone, especially someone who's put so much thought, not to mention faith, in his own idea? Maybe you could, if he were trying to revive the nazi regime with a new elaborate plan, for instance, but I digress. That is not a cool way to behave. It doesn't matter whether or not he's right. Carry on any further, and you seriously are a troll. This has nothing to do with you and I agreeing, so don't pull that card out either. Frankly, I never get this animated about a topic on the Blizzard forums, because it's never worth it, but I'd like to think we should be held to a higher standard here, so pardon me if I come off as rude. He's not trolling... The way Barrin forces his idea down people's throats, in threads where it does not belong, does not annoy just him, but myself (and others that I have spoken to as well). Saying something like "I've almost given up judging 8m maps [b/c they're trash]" or "it's good, for an 8m map" is rude and derogatory to the mappers that put so much effort into a map system that is not only better and more stable (my opinion), but also more balanced and here to stay (blizzard's opinion). It's really annoying. Nothing against Barrin ofc, he put a huge deal of thought and effort into his idea, but now he tries to push that idea down everyone's throat, which will probably end in people (like me and Quot) being left with a distaste towards the notion itself). | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On April 10 2012 09:50 NewSunshine wrote: Well, no, it isn't just mine, clearly. So far, 2 threads, if I'm not mistaken, where he's mentioned it, beside the main discussion thread, so I wouldn't call it spamming. Two. And besides, who are you to try and silence someone, especially someone who's put so much thought, not to mention faith, in his own idea? Maybe you could, if he were trying to revive the nazi regime with a new elaborate plan, for instance, but I digress. That is not a cool way to behave. It doesn't matter whether or not he's right. Carry on any further, and you seriously are a troll. This has nothing to do with you and I agreeing, so don't pull that card out either. Frankly, I never get this animated about a topic on the Blizzard forums, because it's never worth it, but I'd like to think we should be held to a higher standard here, so pardon me if I come off as rude. It's spamming, no matter what you'd call it. It's intentionally bringing up a subject to spread an idea/product/whatever in a situation where it is out of place and irrelevant, without adding anything of value to the thread. "It'd be better as a 6m map" isn't valuable feedback - and when you consequently see how unapologetic Barrin is about it, it's safe to assume he has every intention to keep spamming, which should not go unchecked and unremarked upon in my opinion. And what gives Barrin the right to spread his idea in every thread and situation where he sees fit, entirely at his discretion? If I had an idea that every custom map should take care to not allow lowground-to-highground proxy pylon warp-ins into bases/naturals, and I spammed this idea whenever I felt it was appropriate, I would quickly get a temp ban. "FRB" isn't any different, except you happen to like the concept. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 10 2012 10:03 DYEAlabaster wrote: He's not trolling... The way Barrin forces his idea down people's throats, in threads where it does not belong, does not annoy just him, but myself (and others that I have spoken to as well). Saying something like "I've almost given up judging 8m maps [b/c they're trash]" or "it's good, for an 8m map" is rude and derogatory to the mappers that put so much effort into a map system that is not only better and more stable (my opinion), but also more balanced and here to stay (blizzard's opinion). It's really annoying. Nothing against Barrin ofc, he put a huge deal of thought and effort into his idea, but now he tries to push that idea down everyone's throat, which will probably end in people (like me and Quot) being left with a distaste towards the notion itself). So he now thinks almost exclusively about 6m maps. You can see it as rude and derogatory all you want, but it is in fact up to the individual. He has the right to talk about his idea, and despite Quotidian's description, does not fall under spamming. Of course, he seems pretty unflappable about his own idea(that Barrin should shut up about it), so I'm not going to try and persuade him either. There's an adage: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". There are other little nuances regarding tact in conversation, but the aforementioned adage is the short of it. All this talk about his posts is not necessary, by any means. p.s. I would like to apologize to WinPark for the controversy that has come about. Not exactly helpful feedback, I know. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
2011.04.14 (last year!) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kmjtI.jpg) now.. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xSPM8.jpg) But I don't want to convert all expos to 6m 1hg again. In that case, I already experienced mule's(=terran) overpower. | ||
|
avc
121 Posts
Personally I think the thirds might be ok on raised ground, but maybe they should have a bit of a wider ramp to offset the defensive power of the raised ground. I really do like the map though, I think it's going to be a winner. | ||
|
bananajk
Germany92 Posts
But it looks very nice and allows a lot of different expanding paths. So i would like to see it in some competitive games  The expansions aren't that far away from your main but on the other hand they aren't too easy to defend, too. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
On April 10 2012 23:35 avc wrote: WinPark, what about what IronmanSC said regarding lowering the thirds? Personally I think the thirds might be ok on raised ground, but maybe they should have a bit of a wider ramp to offset the defensive power of the raised ground. I really do like the map though, I think it's going to be a winner. absolutely not. it's extremely important that 3rds are on raised ground or small chokes, see fighting spirit, destination...if u put it on the same level, then you need to remove one ramp. | ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
http://www.crocko.com/A44360673B2D4D4A8CCBC24B4132A241/Whirl_Replays.zip | ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
| ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:18 winpark wrote: avc, I think that is too standard. Recently, many maps become quite similar with one another. I used this map in a tournament I ran recently in Edmonton and everyone really took well to it! It had some awesome games! Thanks for the great maps | ||
|
DomiNater
United States527 Posts
t.t Very nice map man! | ||
|
avc
121 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:18 winpark wrote: avc, I think that is too standard. Recently, many maps become quite similar with one another. You are right, it would be nice to have different maps in the pool, I was just concerned over the ease of defending from so many high positions. Since the map has so many narrow chokes on it already, there isn't much open space for a race like Zerg to work with. Still, I really like this map and hope it gets more attention, I can certainly see it ending up in the GSL. | ||
|
Rossen
Denmark177 Posts
(Wish Blizz had made a custom system where you could play maps like this w/o having to have freinds.) | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
AethariA
Canada22 Posts
| ||
|
HighLach
United States132 Posts
On April 07 2012 22:24 Kmatt wrote: At first glance, this feels a lot like that 8-player FFA map, but the way the plateaus bridge them all together seems really natural. As a zerg, however, I feel really cramped trying to engage unless I've already got brood lords over the gaps and high ground. Although this map may seem bad for zerg because of the cramped positions in a head on assault, the connections between each of the areas would actually allow for great surrounds. I really like the way you can maneuver around. Ling counters would be great =D. I really like this map even for 1v1. | ||
|
Ollie
United States144 Posts
| ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
Also, I think lowering one of the thirds would ruin the map. The map is so rotationally balanced it's not even funny. Also, the high ground thirds are basically the defining part of the map. Removing those would just kill the style. Really beautiful map winpark, aesthetically and game play wise, it's really, really well done. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 18 2012 06:36 TheFish7 wrote: So, when is this going to replace Antiga Shipyard in the ladder pool? I already posted my good wishes and appreciation for this map, but THIS ^ When will this be in GSL? Are you allowed to share any info about that process winpark? | ||
|
zyce
United States649 Posts
| ||
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
| ||
|
RageCommodore
Germany912 Posts
| ||
|
Wroshe
Netherlands1051 Posts
| ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
| ||
|
catatoni
Finland23 Posts
| ||
|
Mamoru
Spain24 Posts
| ||
|
Rivkeh
United States58 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
AnalyZ
France32 Posts
As protoss biased, i like the fact that 3rd and 4th base are pretty easy to defend. the 5th base is the only difficult, but since there is only 2entrence, will be easy to wallin. ForceField will be very good on this map. But now, without being biased, the base layout make terran easy to drop And for zerg, well, easy to defend, close base distance, and a lot of base. Will be easy to have a good mapcontrol. Very good map, imo it don't especially favor a race | ||
|
Mairou
Finland144 Posts
| ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On May 25 2012 02:40 AnalyZ wrote: I personally freaking love this map. As protoss biased, i like the fact that 3rd and 4th base are pretty easy to defend. the 5th base is the only difficult, but since there is only 2entrence, will be easy to wallin. ForceField will be very good on this map. But now, without being biased, the base layout make terran easy to drop And for zerg, well, easy to defend, close base distance, and a lot of base. Will be easy to have a good mapcontrol. Very good map, imo it don't especially favor a race Forgive me but I'm not quite sure why this makes T easy to drop. To me it seems really easy to defend against drop and it's pretty much a one way trap even if you make it in. | ||
|
Whatson
United States5356 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
On May 25 2012 02:55 Mairou wrote: Im really happy that GSL picked this map. We will see lot of good games in this map. Its perfectly balanced and perfect size map. Well, I don't know about perfectly balanced, time will tell. And -perfect- size .. 160x160 is pretty huge tbh^^ On May 25 2012 08:50 IronManSC wrote: I just now realized that there are tiny destructible rocks on all the middle bases on the larger ramps... what exactly is the purpose of those? Well most likely to make the third easier... altho I don't agree with that. As I said earlier and in the announcement thread I think the thirds/fourths in this map might as well be half bases, considering how easy it is to secure 4 bases. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Edit: 3 before and now 4 with a rock, rather. | ||
|
Dingobloo
Australia1903 Posts
| ||
|
Timmay
United States112 Posts
On May 25 2012 09:06 Ragoo wrote:As I said earlier and in the announcement thread I think the thirds/fourths in this map might as well be half bases, considering how easy it is to secure 4 bases. Winpark has already tried that, and he didn't like it. On April 10 2012 23:19 winpark wrote:But I don't want to convert all expos to 6m 1hg again. In that case, I already experienced mule's(=terran) overpower. | ||
|
mrjpark
United States276 Posts
On April 10 2012 23:19 winpark wrote: But I don't want to convert all expos to 6m 1hg again. In that case, I already experienced mule's(=terran) overpower. This is the biggest issue I have with this FRB idea. In a situation where you limit resources for everyone, you give Terrans an insane advantage over the other two races with MULEs. It doesn't sound balanced at all, regardless of "dozens of people" who support you. Mind you, this is a game bought by millions. A few dozen supporters is statistically insignificant. Anyhow, really looking forward to the games on this map. Looks awesome, winpark! | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
On May 25 2012 14:12 Timmay wrote: Winpark has already tried that, and he didn't like it. I wasn't talking about converting -all- the expos to 6m1g like FRB. I am just talking about the thirds/fourths. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I actually really liked the idea of a map like this with the half bases for the thirds/fourths as well, which was obviously some of the inspiration for my map Golden Valley. I want to see how Whirlwind plays with full bases there, though. I guess that old version of the map with 6m was made back in the era of 6m thirds, after Crevasse, Tal Darim and Terminus first hit the scene? I think it was for balance of Protoss deathballs on the huge macro maps, before the infestor buff, and before Blizz changed Tal Darim. These days, balance-wise, full third bases seem fine, though I've been wondering if the half bases on some maps could still be nice for macro games to create incentive for taking an earlier fourth base, not for balance but for gameplay. | ||
|
Lysergic
United States355 Posts
Crux Whirlwind works fine. Could you republish GSL Whirlwind? | ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
| ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
| ||
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327014¤tpage=3#47 | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
| ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
On May 29 2012 20:01 Quotidian wrote: From seeing the map twice in the GSTL, the impression I get is that the map looks to be way too big and makes for bad games :\ I don't think you can judge the Jinro game- that was just sad. I've played this map in tournaments for a while and it seems fine, size wise | ||
|
Quakecomm
United States344 Posts
| ||
|
Im_hell
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
SOOP
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs MaNa
MaxPax vs Solar
Reynor vs Creator
Gerald vs Spirit
Cheesadelphia
CSO Cup
BSL: ProLeague
Hawk vs UltrA
Sziky vs spx
TerrOr vs JDConan
GSL Code S
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL: ProLeague
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
