|
Syphon8 and I have been working together the past few weeks on his map, Electric Version, to submit to the MotM ProAm competition. We've actually gotten along very well, and I've really enjoyed being able to work with him. He's extremely knowledgeable about Starcraft and is on his way to being a pro mapmaker himself. The finished product attempts to fix the issues that came up in discussion and also introduces some new features (yay!).
Major Changes
-Redesigned the third and fourth expansions
-Added a cliff above the third which can be accessed from the natural by breaking rocks
-Reduced the number of forward expansions to 1 half-base per player
-Reversed the intended flow of expansions
-Redesigned many ramps, including widening attack paths around the outside of the map
-Texture/doodad overhaul
Close up shots (Outdated)
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
Currently published on [NA] as "The Atomic Version".
|
For the record, the original was named after this song by The New Pornographers, :p
|
Love the improvements. Biggest quesiton I have is how tanks/blink works from behind the third to the natural. It seems... odd. I don't mean to say it's bad, I'm just confused about it.
Please explain? <3
|
On August 04 2012 12:47 DYEAlabaster wrote:
Love the improvements. Biggest quesiton I have is how tanks/blink works from behind the third to the natural. It seems... odd. I don't mean to say it's bad, I'm just confused about it.
Please explain? <3
Basically the idea is that the third can be harassed if you take it really early, but nothing that can't be stopped by breaking the rocks. By the time medivacs or warpprisms are coming out (give or take based on the build), there should be time for the player to break the rocks or build static defense (like a spine crawler at the nat choke that is in range of the cliff). Blink is effective but not unstoppable considering it won't be in range of the third hatchery. Tanks can only get there with medivacs, and by that time Zerg can break the rocks and/or have enough roaches/infestors to defend.
|
Layout pretty good.
Textures terrible :/. That white sand really kills it.
|
On August 04 2012 12:47 DYEAlabaster wrote:
Biggest quesiton I have is how tanks/blink works from behind the third to the natural. It seems... odd. I don't mean to say it's bad, I'm just confused about it.
Then the map is complete lol
|
Nice changes to the layout! I really like that highground by the third. Aesthetics are interesting, but doesn't seem finished to me. Great job anyway!
|
On August 04 2012 14:40 iGrok wrote:
Layout pretty good.
Textures terrible :/. That white sand really kills it.
Hmm, I think it is a combination of the bad texturing and the snow. I want to rework it to give the map justice because these were kind of half-assed and didn't turn out as well as I hoped.
On August 04 2012 16:20 ScorpSCII wrote:
Nice changes to the layout! I really like that highground by the third. Aesthetics are interesting, but doesn't seem finished to me. Great job anyway!
Yeah I rushed through them and I don't like how it came out. I'll give it some more work later!
|
I'd say get rid of the Korhal buildings on the voids of the map, kinda ruins the look, without them it looks apocalyptic, with them it looks silly.
I think aesthetics are ok.
|
On August 04 2012 14:40 iGrok wrote:
Layout pretty good.
Textures terrible :/. That white sand really kills it.
Yup, I have to agree on the textures. "Why is there sand?" is the first thing I thought.
|
The rocks blocking the ledge above the 3rd is a cute little addition.
I could see the sand thing making some sense if it was like a deserted town/city near the beach or in the desert that has had sand blown onto it over the years.. but here it doesn't work because the texturing isn't gradual enough and the korhal buildings below shatter that kind of effect.
|
As other have said, texturing/aesthetics needs reworking. I love the layout though, especially the main/nat/3rd. I can see that high ground leading in to the nat creating very unique games. Good stuff guys.
|
lol wtf with your geysers, they arent placed well
|
On August 05 2012 01:36 Acertos wrote:
lol wtf with your geysers, they arent placed well
I believe they are. You have to space them a bit apart when they are in the corner or else you will have geysers which require 4 workers to saturate.
Minerals, on the other hand...
|
On August 05 2012 01:46 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 01:36 Acertos wrote:
lol wtf with your geysers, they arent placed well I believe they are. You have to space them a bit apart when they are in the corner or else you will have geysers which require 4 workers to saturate. Minerals, on the other hand...
Plus some geysers are stuck to minerals wich make it easier to defend against hellions and zerglings runby
|
On August 05 2012 01:52 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 01:46 Gfire wrote:On August 05 2012 01:36 Acertos wrote:
lol wtf with your geysers, they arent placed well I believe they are. You have to space them a bit apart when they are in the corner or else you will have geysers which require 4 workers to saturate. Minerals, on the other hand... Plus some geysers are stuck to minerals wich make it easier to defend against hellions and zerglings runby
Technically you can squeeze units in through the gaps sometimes because a naked geyser doesn't have a footprint the size of it's 3x3 square. Once you build a refinery on it it changes shape and fills up more space (the opposite of BW), but strangely Blizzard made the footprint asymmetrical for this one building (or three: refinery/extractor/assimilator) so there's some positional imbalance involved.
Because of this, it's best not to have anything touching the geysers unless very carefully placed and intended as a gameplay mechanic (such as Monitor's semi-islands with geyser walloffs) so you don't end up with situations like on Korhal Compound where once you take the gas a path is blocked off on one side of the map but not the other.
However, I think on this map the minerals should be moved, not the geysers. It looks like the geyser position relative to the nexus is proper.
|
Is this an improvement?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0sjBE.jpg)
|
I think it is better, but now there are large areas of the same looking thing. Needs a little more variety imo, a bit more detail maybe. But it's not bad like that.
|
I dont see why people complain about the texturing, i think it looks clean and good! Great job!
|
On August 05 2012 06:25 Infidler wrote:
I dont see why people complain about the texturing, i think it looks clean and good! Great job!
I think people were complaining about the first version, which can be found at the third spoiler in the close up shots.
|
On August 05 2012 07:35 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 06:25 Infidler wrote:
I dont see why people complain about the texturing, i think it looks clean and good! Great job! I think people were complaining about the first version, which can be found at the third spoiler in the close up shots.
No, we're complaining about this version. 
Don't you have some way to use real snow though?
|
On August 05 2012 08:11 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 07:35 monitor wrote:On August 05 2012 06:25 Infidler wrote:
I dont see why people complain about the texturing, i think it looks clean and good! Great job! I think people were complaining about the first version, which can be found at the third spoiler in the close up shots. No, we're complaining about this version. Don't you have some way to use real snow though?
It was the actual snow texture... It just doesn't look good with the other ones that were on it.
|
looks much better now. It's a shame with the 1.5 patch that it wont let you make the tarmac doodads semi transparent any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jMba1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MCM08.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mxABC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eihXz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0T9Hd.jpg)
