|
|
This looks like a better version of Metropolis, well done. That said, I don't really care for the aesthetics. Taking it apart, the different elements you've devised all work on there own--and I think they'd look great on a different type of map--but they don't seem to mesh well with this layout.
|
I personally love the aesthetics, as well as the base layout. Different from a lot of other maps which makes it interesting.
|
I would take the pathing brush and just go mad with the non-pathing over the decorative terrain here, all of it's playing havoc with the analyzer readout(avg openness is way off). I quite like the layout though, sorta like Superouman's Harrogath, but with more normal rush distances.
|
i think theres some proportion issues with the map. at first glance, you get that temple/metal/metro vibe. but the fact you can fit two XNTs lengthwise shows its a very large map. with very little base density, you put players in a difficult situation to even get a competent third base.
with these mirror style maps, there is very little you can in the way of originality and you have to be very careful in the design and layout if you want yours to stand out. i like the aesthetics alot, but i think at this size, you could do with more bases.
|
On July 19 2012 10:44 Syphon8 wrote: This looks like a better version of Metropolis, well done. That said, I don't really care for the aesthetics. Taking it apart, the different elements you've devised all work on there own--and I think they'd look great on a different type of map--but they don't seem to mesh well with this layout.
First thing I thought of was metropolis too.
I actually really like the garden aesthetic. My only concern about the aesthetic is the number of doodads in this map, with the number of vines and the size of the map.
Also the thirds look really hard to take, and 4 mins 1 gas is very little. Is the gas rich? Anyway, the rush distances on this map are fairly huge.
|
On July 19 2012 11:27 NewSunshine wrote: I would take the pathing brush and just go mad with the non-pathing over the decorative terrain here, all of it's playing havoc with the analyzer readout(avg openness is way off). I quite like the layout though, sorta like Superouman's Harrogath, but with more normal rush distances.
I already used the pathing brush.
On July 19 2012 11:38 a176 wrote: i think theres some proportion issues with the map. at first glance, you get that temple/metal/metro vibe. but the fact you can fit two XNTs lengthwise shows its a very large map. with very little base density, you put players in a difficult situation to even get a competent third base.
with these mirror style maps, there is very little you can in the way of originality and you have to be very careful in the design and layout if you want yours to stand out. i like the aesthetics alot, but i think at this size, you could do with more bases.
Full thirds are further away than is usual. But there is always an option to expand away from your opponent and there are chokes leading into them. "Base density" as you put it is intentional.
On July 19 2012 12:10 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 10:44 Syphon8 wrote: This looks like a better version of Metropolis, well done. That said, I don't really care for the aesthetics. Taking it apart, the different elements you've devised all work on there own--and I think they'd look great on a different type of map--but they don't seem to mesh well with this layout. First thing I thought of was metropolis too. I actually really like the garden aesthetic. My only concern about the aesthetic is the number of doodads in this map, with the number of vines and the size of the map. Also the thirds look really hard to take, and 4 mins 1 gas is very little. Is the gas rich? Anyway, the rush distances on this map are fairly huge.
Vines are static doodads. That is no lights and they don't move. It shouldn't be a problem.
About the thirds see above.
Regarding the half bases I have chosen that because Blizzard complains that odd bases make it hard to estimate your opponents income and that is why they are against them. Therefore restricting it to half bases makes the calculation easier.
I would love to play on the map with some if you if you like. Then you can get a feel for it in game instead of judging from the overview.
|
when I first saw this map, I thought it was really good. Then I kept staring at it and I realized I might actually love this map. it needs a little more work on the spacing I feel, the third/fourth seems like they're at awkward distances. other than that, this is amazing,
|
3rds are way to open, if you want to have a half base as a 3rd you need to make it much easier, I suggest moving it back to a place between the nat and 4th ramp, there is actually a place for it there. Unless you do that taking a 3rd would be hell since it is so open and far...
|
On July 20 2012 21:23 moskonia wrote: 3rds are way to open, if you want to have a half base as a 3rd you need to make it much easier, I suggest moving it back to a place between the nat and 4th ramp, there is actually a place for it there. Unless you do that taking a 3rd would be hell since it is so open and far...
On the contrary, I think he needs to keep those thirds as half bases. The positioning is too good for a planetary and having that position and full resources with a third is too much for terran. See Xel'naga Caverns for why it's an issue, Daybreak for half base as a solution. On this map you're incentivised to take the back third and if you take the forward one you have better positioning but less economy. I like that dynamic but I think a lot of the map feels quite samey.
|
Very nice. I have to admit that I can´t think of any map with comparable aesthetics in the recent months. Good job!
I think you need to remove the destructible rocks, it is just too easy to turtle with them blocking half of the ramps. Other than that I see no major flaws in the layout. Anything else will only be shown through extended testing.
NOW HOW DO YOU DARE TO MAKE YOUR CENTER SO EMPTY PUT SOME GODDAMN TEXTURES THERE, THE EDGES ARE SO BEAUTIFUL
Also: Pathing. o.O
|
lol. that is some vine porn
|
the half bases should have at least 5 minerals and a rich vespene imho, close position rush distance looks short as well.
|
On July 20 2012 23:28 X3GoldDot wrote: the half bases should have at least 5 minerals and a rich vespene imho, close position rush distance looks short as well.
Zerg isn´t THAT OP. Zerg isn´t THAT OP. This base pretty much protects both your nat and your 3rd. Would be too strong, for Toss and for Terran if Terran would be balanced.
|
|
I moved the half base thirds out of concern that it was too hard to take a third in close positions.
|
I think the half bases should be 3/4 bases.
|
thumbs up this is a great map, the maze like layout of the middle is really cool and rings pretty true to the name of the map. when i run some custom practice matches i will be using this.
|
On July 21 2012 10:31 SFGIANTS91 wrote: thumbs up this is a great map, the maze like layout of the middle is really cool and rings pretty true to the name of the map. when i run some custom practice matches i will be using this.
Please link the replays here if you do. Let's go Giants.
|
|
|
|