v1.1 Made by: Gfire Published on:[AM] [EU] [SEA] [KR]
Introduction/Inspiration:
This is a sort of setup which has been developing in my head for a while now. The other day I sat down and built it.
This is my first 4p rotational map in... Very long time. It's not something I saw much benefit in pursuing, as they are harder to make but not really any better in my opinion. However, I realized that maps are often about good concepts, and not striving to make some optimal or ideal map, I decided to make so since I had a rotational map concept developing in my head.
The concept is about the ground third bases (a bit inspired by Whirlwind, I admit,) but they are only 6m1hyg bases, so you'll have to take a fourth pretty early. I paired it with a bridge from the area between the two third bases which lead up to a high ground pod players can control towards the center. I really liked this general layout, and it seemed to work quite well for a 4p rotational map, although the mains are a bit squished.
The watchtower placement came in later. I thought there was a lot of airspace and I decided to include something which I had been thinking about for a while, which was using Watchtowers to spot air space to see drops or other flying units on route to your base. I think there could be some interesting tactics around the watchtower as well.
Update 1 - Updated Aesthetics, added LosB and critters, put a watchtower in the center and removed the other ones. Update 2 - Updated the map for ESV Korean Weekly. Aesthetic and pathing improvements, minor bug fixes Update 3 - Added a very small gap between the main and adjacent third.
This is awesome! Seriously, this is one of the best "standard-ish" maps I've seen. Great work on the center. The bridge works well too.
I'm not sure how well the thirds will work with the metagame, but it might actually improve ZvP so it isn't such a fast max. We'll see.
I think you can probably start working on some creative stuff like new map features. Definitely work some more on the aesthetics- these are alright, but I think it could use some more doodads like trees, rocks, brush, etc.
On May 06 2012 09:45 monitor wrote: This is awesome! Seriously, this is one of the best "standard-ish" maps I've seen. Great work on the center. The bridge works well too.
I'm not sure how well the thirds will work with the metagame, but it might actually improve ZvP so it isn't such a fast max. We'll see.
I think you can probably start working on some creative stuff like new map features. Definitely work some more on the aesthetics- these are alright, but I think it could use some more doodads like trees, rocks, brush, etc.
Thanks. ^^ That means a lot coming from you.
I want to add more to the aesthetics... I kinda suck when it gets to this point, though.
I think it is really similar to Whirlwind, as you admit. However, it does have a cool idea, the watchtowers being used to watch airspace. Obviously, having too much airspace in a map is bad(not saying that about this map at all, just a general thing), but placing watchtowers that specifically cover chunks of airspace can create an entirely new type of map feature, and metalopolis-style maps(maps with blobs of airspace between the mains) might become more well-balanced. At least, there certainly is the potential for something like that.
You should change the name to Brown Valley. It fits better, and will make people laugh. :D
I dig the center. may be a BIT too easy for toss or terran to sit on 4 bases though... and a terran attack on the 3rd base would be pretty brutal with the watchtowers the way they are. but hey i play z so it's in my blood to complain. real nice aesthetics though... and i dont even like warm colors..
This is inverse carl sagan + whirlwind. In other words, sweet. I really like the aesthetics vibe. The only thing that could go wrong with this map is the narrow chokes on the push between adjacent bases. Mech TvZ could get ugly, not sure. But the towers help immensely with early pushes and have that perfect balance of slightly out of the way to control, and also possible to avoid for longer route. On top of that they cover air space as a novelty feature. Cool.
Put the watch towers in the middle. The middle just looks boring and serves no real purpose unless it's cross-spawn. I also disagree with watch towers revealing 2 bases each.
So the only way to get a third base with 2 geysers is by expanding to the other side of the map (and non at all if you play this map 2v2). I miss at least a third base with 2 geysers since it is hard to play a macro-oriented game with so few geysers.
I would consider blocking the entrance to a 'third' with rocks and add a geyser to the less safe 'fourth' (I am talking about the at the moment equally hard to defend third and fourth bases.
That way you kind-of solve the geyser issue and still leave a viable choice for some players who wish to take the safer base whose ramp is defended by a rock wall but has less gas.
On May 06 2012 11:47 NewSunshine wrote: I think it is really similar to Whirlwind, as you admit. However, it does have a cool idea, the watchtowers being used to watch airspace. Obviously, having too much airspace in a map is bad(not saying that about this map at all, just a general thing), but placing watchtowers that specifically cover chunks of airspace can create an entirely new type of map feature, and metalopolis-style maps(maps with blobs of airspace between the mains) might become more well-balanced. At least, there certainly is the potential for something like that.
You should change the name to Brown Valley. It fits better, and will make people laugh. :D
Yup. We'll see how well it works, I guess.
On May 06 2012 13:41 TremendO wrote: I dig the center. may be a BIT too easy for toss or terran to sit on 4 bases though... and a terran attack on the 3rd base would be pretty brutal with the watchtowers the way they are. but hey i play z so it's in my blood to complain. real nice aesthetics though... and i dont even like warm colors..
Yeah, my biggest concern here would be a Terran expanding towards a Zerg in close positions and locking down the watchtower.
On May 06 2012 14:27 EatThePath wrote: This is inverse carl sagan + whirlwind. In other words, sweet. I really like the aesthetics vibe. The only thing that could go wrong with this map is the narrow chokes on the push between adjacent bases. Mech TvZ could get ugly, not sure. But the towers help immensely with early pushes and have that perfect balance of slightly out of the way to control, and also possible to avoid for longer route. On top of that they cover air space as a novelty feature. Cool.
Yeah, TvZ mech is definitely a concern. Hopefully not too bad since the Zerg can expand away from the Terran and there's lots of space for counterattacks and such, but we'll see.
On May 06 2012 17:07 IronManSC wrote: Put the watch towers in the middle. The middle just looks boring and serves no real purpose unless it's cross-spawn. I also disagree with watch towers revealing 2 bases each.
Yeah, I was already considering that. I'm not quite as conservative a mapper as you, and I put the watchtowers where they are although I knew they might cause problems.
On May 06 2012 18:58 Callynn wrote: So the only way to get a third base with 2 geysers is by expanding to the other side of the map (and non at all if you play this map 2v2). I miss at least a third base with 2 geysers since it is hard to play a macro-oriented game with so few geysers.
I would consider blocking the entrance to a 'third' with rocks and add a geyser to the less safe 'fourth' (I am talking about the at the moment equally hard to defend third and fourth bases.
That way you kind-of solve the geyser issue and still leave a viable choice for some players who wish to take the safer base whose ramp is defended by a rock wall but has less gas.
They are high yield geysers, btw, so it's only a small amount less gas. The entire point of doing this is so that players have some incentive for taking fourth even before their main mines out.
On May 06 2012 20:09 Samcai wrote: Really nice map
Thanks ^^
On May 06 2012 20:44 Aunvilgod wrote: The layout is just... so cool. Death to all turtle games! \o/ The highgrounds should provide great strategical games on all spawns.
The middle seems a little empty. Could you spice it up a little?
The middle is a bit empty... I don't want it to be any less open than this, but visually it is a bit boring. I'm planning on working on the visual side a little more. It's also possible that I would put a watchtower in the middle if the current ones don't work out.
You can just throw down some trees to make it look nicer ^^ Also generate foliage!
I agree with Superouman that the middle is a bit boring and could use a tower. The side towers are alright, but I don't think they're necessary. Drop spotting should be more about skill than just sitting at a tower imo.
I'm more heavily considering removing these watchtowers after the comments. Thought a think it's "worth a try" it's not as if people are going to do intensive playtesting to figure out if it's worth it. Good players won't play a map a lot unless it's in a tournament, and a tournament won't include an untested map, especially if it has a weird, untested feature like this, which could be broken. It's the map pool paradox. For this reason, it's good to be conservative with maps if you want them to be accepted. That's hard for me because I like to push the limits, but it's probably the major thing holding me back from success as a mapper (second only to my refusal to use pathable water .)
So I'll likely take the watchtowers out. Maybe I'll add a poll for that.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the center though... Does it really need a watchtower to make it less boring? Is there not enough focus on the center? Does it need to have more weight to it? I would fear that a watchtower would remove from some positional play and map control, so I'm hesitant. Although it's probably preferable to the current setup of the watchtowers.
You say that drop spotting should be more about skill than just sitting at a tower, and I agree, but I also feel that way about push scouting.
Very nice work Gfire, I love the idea of lowering the resource counts on the bases beyond the natural. I'm torn when it comes to the watchtowers - I like the idea of putting them on the sides of the map, but I worry that they will erode defender's advantage too much for whomever is not holding the towers.
For the aesthetics in the middle, I would suggest lots of scattered plants, jungle and wasteland, Brambles, and TempleBricks, Birds, Bush, maybe Tumbleweeds, Vines, Rock Small are all good for adding tiny details without worrying about footprints, and are less random than generated foliage.
Yeah, I've added some trees in some areas and will continue to, and I'm also going to add vines and other details around as well. But since the map is in such a near-complete state as it is, there's not too much motivation to put a lot of time into it. I might work more on other projects than I have on this map for the few days before publishing, but I'll definitely continue to work on the aesthetics.
On May 07 2012 03:15 monitor wrote: You can just throw down some trees to make it look nicer ^^ Also generate foliage!
I agree with Superouman that the middle is a bit boring and could use a tower. The side towers are alright, but I don't think they're necessary. Drop spotting should be more about skill than just sitting at a tower imo.
Having a tower that allows drop spotting makes it a strategic asset with gravity on the map, distinct from other assets we've seen before. Whether or not this should exist essentially on the main push path, the chokiest path, the shortest path, and in a choky pocket, that is plenty questionable, and I lean towards probably not, but worth a shot.
The general concept though is not skill reducing like you suggest. If terran wants to send out drops, they need to shoo overlords with a viking or just hope they dodge. That is still the case here, except they also need to push out to the tower to get their drop through. Is there one ling? Your single stim marine just cleared your drop path. Is there creep at the tower? How much do you commit with then? Do they have a baneling trap on the ramp or choke? A flank waiting or a zergling group waiting to grab a marine squad? I think it creates much more depth than the usual "fly around the outside derp". And the dynamics change a lot in all matchups.
The middle is plenty useful and interesting once people have expanded away from each other to the half 4th of a far corner. A tower there would make the middle too choky / deathball favoured imo, as well as boring.
i think what you are forcing the players to do is double expand so they get the full amount of gas after the natural. dont know if this will be a problem or not.
Alright, I updated the map with aesthetics adjustments, a watchtower in the middle now and none on the sides, and some losb. I also added some critters. Please tell me what you think.
I've updated the OP showing the latest version. I've polished up the aesthetics a fair bit and fixed some bugs. It's now uploaded on KR, SEA, EU and NA servers.
On June 28 2012 08:19 NewSunshine wrote: I feel trolled. When did this happen?
There's an announcement coming soon. Anyway congrats on getting Golden Valley into the weekly and I look forward to seeing it!!
Is there some new layout he's come up with that I'm missing or something? I understand one will work on a WIP with people through Skype weeks before posting, but I'm stumped. I don't see why he's being added to the ESV roster. Timetwister was a sudden move, and one that looked premature, but even that was a more justified addition than this. Gfire has a few WIP's so far besides this, but I don't see why he's considered a solid addition to the same team that has Jacky on it. Maybe there's some overriding goal they're trying to accomplish, but I don't understand.
On June 28 2012 08:19 NewSunshine wrote: I feel trolled. When did this happen?
There's an announcement coming soon. Anyway congrats on getting Golden Valley into the weekly and I look forward to seeing it!!
Is there some new layout he's come up with that I'm missing or something? I understand one will work on a WIP with people through Skype weeks before posting, but I'm stumped. I don't see why he's being added to the ESV roster. Timetwister was a sudden move, and one that looked premature, but even that was a more justified addition than this. Gfire has a few WIP's so far besides this, but I don't see why he's considered a solid addition to the same team that has Jacky on it. Maybe there's some overriding goal they're trying to accomplish, but I don't understand.
Sorry, if I had known you had that attitude I wouldn't have responded so... lightheartedly.
On June 28 2012 08:19 NewSunshine wrote: I feel trolled. When did this happen?
There's an announcement coming soon. Anyway congrats on getting Golden Valley into the weekly and I look forward to seeing it!!
Is there some new layout he's come up with that I'm missing or something? I understand one will work on a WIP with people through Skype weeks before posting, but I'm stumped. I don't see why he's being added to the ESV roster. Timetwister was a sudden move, and one that looked premature, but even that was a more justified addition than this. Gfire has a few WIP's so far besides this, but I don't see why he's considered a solid addition to the same team that has Jacky on it. Maybe there's some overriding goal they're trying to accomplish, but I don't understand.
Luckily for us only I have to understand. I have yet to make a bad choice, give me some trust.
A good map is a good map. Congratulations. If anything this should be exciting for budding mapmakers, not met with jealousy. If you pull off a good map you can be rewarded.
On June 28 2012 09:32 Gfire wrote: Sorry, if I had known you had that attitude I wouldn't have responded so... lightheartedly.
I have nothing against you at all, and I'm glad to see you make more maps instead of just commenting on them. My point is that unless Diamond knows something I don't, it would appear ESV is lowering their standards. You're not a bad mapmaker, but to be acquired by ESV so quickly seems... off. Who knows, I'll give it some time.
On June 28 2012 09:32 Gfire wrote: Sorry, if I had known you had that attitude I wouldn't have responded so... lightheartedly.
I have nothing against you at all, and I'm glad to see you make more maps instead of just commenting on them. My point is that unless Diamond knows something I don't, it would appear ESV is lowering their standards. You're not a bad mapmaker, but to be acquired by ESV so quickly seems... off. Who knows, I'll give it some time.
If I didn't know things other people did not do you think I would have helped raised the premiere map team?
On June 28 2012 09:32 Gfire wrote: Sorry, if I had known you had that attitude I wouldn't have responded so... lightheartedly.
I have nothing against you at all, and I'm glad to see you make more maps instead of just commenting on them. My point is that unless Diamond knows something I don't, it would appear ESV is lowering their standards. You're not a bad mapmaker, but to be acquired by ESV so quickly seems... off. Who knows, I'll give it some time.
We recruited him because he showed that knows the basics of the editor, he responds well to criticism, and has a good attitude.
On June 28 2012 09:32 Gfire wrote: Sorry, if I had known you had that attitude I wouldn't have responded so... lightheartedly.
I have nothing against you at all, and I'm glad to see you make more maps instead of just commenting on them. My point is that unless Diamond knows something I don't, it would appear ESV is lowering their standards. You're not a bad mapmaker, but to be acquired by ESV so quickly seems... off. Who knows, I'll give it some time.
You mean because I don't post a lot of maps? I mean, obviously I hadn't gotten a map into a pool before joining ESV, but that's kind of a steep requirement. It's hard enough to get a map into pools even on a team. But I've been making maps since the day the editor came out during beta, so it's not exactly quickly.
But you know, I can't say I wasn't a bit surprised, myself. And I hope to prove that I can be up to those high standards.
On June 28 2012 09:32 Gfire wrote: Sorry, if I had known you had that attitude I wouldn't have responded so... lightheartedly.
I have nothing against you at all, and I'm glad to see you make more maps instead of just commenting on them. My point is that unless Diamond knows something I don't, it would appear ESV is lowering their standards. You're not a bad mapmaker, but to be acquired by ESV so quickly seems... off. Who knows, I'll give it some time.
We recruited him because he showed that knows the basics of the editor, he responds well to criticism, and has a good attitude.
So do I :o But I don't expect to be picked up by any team any time soon...
A good map is a good map. Congratulations. If anything this should be exciting for budding mapmakers, not met with jealousy. If you pull off a good map you can be rewarded.
I agree also, but this is a pretty competitive community so every budding mapmaker is trying to get recognized.
I like the map but I feel it is just way too similar to Whirlwind, especially since WW is now just starting to get so popular with GSL picking it up.
I also dislike the 1/2 bases for 3rds/4ths. Especially since it's all double wide ramps to get those bases good luck against any 2 base timing push. Yet even if you meet them as they are crossing in the middle of the map they also have all those ramps to defend on. I also dislike that you can cliffwalk from one of the thirds into the main. It'll only promote 1 or 2 base play even more, it'll be a perfect spot for terran to leapfrog tanks/bio, it'll be perfect for blink stalkers and forcefields (especially with the 2x-ramp).
Congratulations on getting it into ESV map pool, that's awesome and it'll be a blast to see games played on your map. Unfortunately I don't care for this map just because as I said earlier I just feel it's a worse version of Whirlwind. (This isn't a bad thing at all though because it's still a great map!)
On June 28 2012 09:52 monitor wrote: We recruited him because he showed that knows the basics of the editor, he responds well to criticism, and has a good attitude.
I'm not so sure that makes for sufficient criteria when it comes to joining the 'premiere mapping team'. It's a good reason for ESV members to give comments and feedback for his maps, and if he proves himself at some point then recruit him, but I'm saying this looks like a snap decision. And also, if you're looking for mappers that have maps with potential, respond well to criticism, and work well with already established mapmakers, what's wrong with waiting for MotM?
I don't want to come off as rude, and if I did I probably overreacted. I don't wish to argue with you guys.
On June 28 2012 09:52 monitor wrote: We recruited him because he showed that knows the basics of the editor, he responds well to criticism, and has a good attitude.
I'm not so sure that makes for sufficient criteria when it comes to joining the 'premiere mapping team'. It's a good reason for ESV members to give comments and feedback for his maps, and if he proves himself at some point then recruit him, but I'm saying this looks like a snap decision. And also, if you're looking for mappers that have maps with potential, respond well to criticism, and work well with already established mapmakers, what's wrong with waiting for MotM?
I don't want to come off as rude, and if I did I probably overreacted. I don't wish to argue with you guys.
It wasn't a rushed decision at all, we took weeks (if not months) to decide who was right. "Basic skills of the editor" wasn't exactly what I meant - we were looking for somebody who was really good. And I'm not saying you or anybody else isn't "really good", I just mean that I shouldn't have been so loose with the explanation. Another major factor was how active and dedicated the person was, and Gfire showed that he is to us. All of the ESV members agreed that we wanted some fresh blood that we could help along the way (we were getting less and less active- and I can tell you now, we've got a lot of projects in the works). Anyway lets limit this to a skype chat from now on so we don't derail this thread too much. Just wait for the announcement otherwise.
Sweet aesthetics, the texture looks very natural and I like the Doodads that you have added. I am very interested to see how the map mechanics will play out, so I will definitely watch the ESV TV Korean Weekly Open this weekend.
On June 29 2012 16:30 kim9067 wrote: Great Map. I like the half-thirds.
Thanks.
On June 29 2012 21:47 SanD__ wrote: Sweet aesthetics, the texture looks very natural and I like the Doodads that you have added. I am very interested to see how the map mechanics will play out, so I will definitely watch the ESV TV Korean Weekly Open this weekend.
Thanks, I'll try to get some close-up shots done soon.
On June 30 2012 01:34 winpark wrote: really "a BIT inspired by Whirlwind"?
Maybe more than a bit. It was originally a 2p though, which gave a very different impression. The emphasis of that map was supposed to be the bridge and central high ground pod, which I hope remains true even in this version, but I agree that it's similar to Whirlwind in the overall impression you get looking at it.
To be honest I thought it was too much like Whirlwind to be an ESV map and used in the KW. You can blame Diamond for that.
Fortunately I think, while they look similar, they will play quite differently, so the actual product that the viewers are getting won't be impaired too much, even if I'm embarrassed to have a map that's so similar to another one used in tournament play.
On June 30 2012 02:12 Superouman wrote: No need to be inspired by whirlwind, this expand layout is very standard
its practically the same map =/ well at least when whirlwind was 6min1gas at all 3rds
I feel that although it's similar to a suspicious degree, it will still play differently. Being a smaller map, with 3rd's and 4th's that have less resources, the games on it will probably feel more aggressive, and less passive like what Whirlwind lends to. All that said, however, I'm not impressed with the map overall, it's more or less a copy of a bone-standard map, and I don't think it should be an ESV map. Note I say the map, not the mapmaker, I do hope Gfire's next idea is more interesting, and with ESV's help it will become something worth making. We'll see.
I actually edited my comment from saying that it was too similar to Whirlwind to the compliment, but since the original mapmaker's here, I guess I'll say my thoughts. Even whirlwind had a similar idea of half-thirds, and then he scrapped it. So basically, this map would be a prototype of whirlwind, which i really don't like. Most of ESV's maps were original - I don't think so with this one. Sorry...
Almost everything is the same, except the center, which in it self is also similar to an earlier version of whirlwind.
On June 30 2012 02:27 Aeceus wrote: What does it really offer that Whirlwind doesn't? From what i've seen they are pretty much the same map
The center of this map has some interesting hills. I think the hill features there are pretty different from whirlwind, even if the basic layout and geo features on the outside are the same.
I played this map on doa's show 'cartographer' in a TvZ where I went mech into sky terran. I'm a big fan of playing new maps, but I didn't really like this one too much. My criticism is from a terran perspective, especially a gas hungry one so I apologise in advance for bias.
It just feels to me like there's not enough bases, especially with how open the centre of the map is, the gap between your fourth and expanding to a new natural feels very difficult to move to, because the map is still relatively small.
The map also plays very strangely in non-cross positions, but that isn't so much of an issue I guess. I do like how many great positions there are to move around with, especially as you take the third base and set up your defensive position.
The new textures are more fitting to the map name I suppose, but I don't get why mapmakers, blizzard or otherwise, insist on making maps that are so depressing with their textures. This is just my opinion but I'd love to see more maps with tilesets like ohana, frigid pass etc..
On June 30 2012 02:27 Aeceus wrote: What does it really offer that Whirlwind doesn't? From what i've seen they are pretty much the same map
The center of this map has some interesting hills. I think the hill features there are pretty different from whirlwind, even if the basic layout and geo features on the outside are the same.
Yeah, I at least find the games on it interesting and not too similar to whirlwind. But the concepts aren't too different so I don't think there's really room to have, say, both in the same map pool.
On July 20 2012 04:52 LemonyTang wrote: I played this map on doa's show 'cartographer' in a TvZ where I went mech into sky terran. I'm a big fan of playing new maps, but I didn't really like this one too much. My criticism is from a terran perspective, especially a gas hungry one so I apologise in advance for bias.
It just feels to me like there's not enough bases, especially with how open the centre of the map is, the gap between your fourth and expanding to a new natural feels very difficult to move to, because the map is still relatively small.
The map also plays very strangely in non-cross positions, but that isn't so much of an issue I guess. I do like how many great positions there are to move around with, especially as you take the third base and set up your defensive position.
Yeah, I could see how mech could be tough vs zerg on this map. Maybe the tight chokes and forward positions can make up for the difficulty to get gas as T, but it does feel like you'd be better off trying more drop play with bio. Cross positions feel a little hard for TvZ post-patch, as I did make this before then. Hopefully there'll be some mech TvZs in the KW so we get some more games to compare.
The new textures are more fitting to the map name I suppose, but I don't get why mapmakers, blizzard or otherwise, insist on making maps that are so depressing with their textures. This is just my opinion but I'd love to see more maps with tilesets like ohana, frigid pass etc..
Well, I suppose it's fairly subjective. Generally I try to use bright lighting so it's not depressing. I think lighting might contribute to the feeling more than textures. I find the darker tilesets look really nice with brighter lighting.
Still, I think everyone feels differently about what's depressing and what's not. A snow map, for me, is far more depressing than this, so it was interesting to me that you brought that up.
On July 20 2012 05:08 Gfire wrote: Still, I think everyone feels differently about what's depressing and what's not. A snow map, for me, is far more depressing than this, so it was interesting to me that you brought that up.
WUT.
Anyway, I say completely ugly. Not only do I think the original is straight up better looking, but I like how it fit the name in a not so direct way, the atmosphere created by all the elements fits the name golden valley, but now the textures are screaming "LOOK, IT'S GOLD". Honestly, I've seen a few games on it so far, and the original aesthetic was better than I thought it would be, I don't think this is an improvement. Stick with what you've got.
On July 20 2012 05:08 Gfire wrote: Still, I think everyone feels differently about what's depressing and what's not. A snow map, for me, is far more depressing than this, so it was interesting to me that you brought that up.
WUT.
Anyway, I say completely ugly. Not only do I think the original is straight up better looking, but I like how it fit the name in a not so direct way, the atmosphere created by all the elements fits the name golden valley, but now the textures are screaming "LOOK, IT'S GOLD". Honestly, I've seen a few games on it so far, and the original aesthetic was better than I thought it would be, I don't think this is an improvement. Stick with what you've got.
Snow maps are kinda depressing... Like no life and everything. The MOST depressing map though, is one of those maps where it's theres like protoss cliffs with natural cliffs, it's so ergh... If you do it right, it's ok, but just doing it badly makes it depressing.
The new textures aren't gold. We need more golden textures.
On July 30 2012 03:17 Gfire wrote: I updated the map a bit. There's now a quite small gap between the mains and the adjacent thirds. I also added some closeup shots to the OP.
On July 30 2012 03:17 Gfire wrote: I updated the map a bit. There's now a quite small gap between the mains and the adjacent thirds. I also added some closeup shots to the OP.
Just to take out the cliffwalk?
No, there's still a small place where you can cliff walk. Just about a 2.5ish gap over most of it to make elevator play a bit trickier. Still possible, it was just a little too easy before. TBH it's pretty small so not a huge difference.
Hey with the new patch it is impossible for you to switch 2 players to the opposing teams. Hope you can fix this fast! I really enjoyed playing on this map! On NA severs.
On August 09 2012 01:35 Veloh15 wrote: Hey with the new patch it is impossible for you to switch 2 players to the opposing teams. Hope you can fix this fast! I really enjoyed playing on this map!
Gfire, I have updated my thread to fix this issue.
On August 09 2012 01:35 Veloh15 wrote: Hey with the new patch it is impossible for you to switch 2 players to the opposing teams. Hope you can fix this fast! I really enjoyed playing on this map!
Gfire, I have updated my thread to fix this issue.
Thanks! I've updated it and uploaded to NA. Having trouble logging into EU right now, maybe 1.5.1 isn't out yet there or something?