|
On September 23 2012 13:58 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 11:23 Fatam wrote:
Map is a pretty solid start I think, I don't see any major issues. You gonna have RF do the textures again? Honestly? There's a severe lack of understanding in general proportions (ridiculously obvious example: just look at the size of the mains compared to the rest of the map, then consider the map size), a lack of any strategy to the map (it's literally a straight path to take until each player hits at least a 4th base), and a very uninspired design overall. There's also a lot of wasted space around the edges, which ties into the proportion issue. These are just the dead obvious things to point out, too. Usually when I provide criticisms, I tend to give my own counter-arguments (either immediately or over the course of debate) and let the map maker decide which is the best path to move forward with. In this case, however, the map maker seriously should have spent a lot more time in the editor working on the layout concept and fixing many of the clearly blatant issues before presenting it publicly. The wording in the OP suggests the map was made within a single evening (and late at night, at that). Even half-decent maps aren't just made overnight.
Its not that bad. The proportions are slightly off, but they do not destroy the map. You overrate proportions.
An uninspired design? Tell me more about your original ideas... The community is so narrow minded and not open for experiments that you really can't create anything truly original.
|
Hi. I'll just post here one last time:
I mentioned the creep tumor thing because it seemed like you were struggling with map proportions. Almost all your maps have really big mains, and lot of airspace.
I've seen almost all your maps, I've been to your map thread, and saw your maps.
You said you made this on a midnight so it's bad? Why did you upload it here? Why didn't you improve it and then post it?
And if you try to copy some of the official maps, it can be really helpful for future maps.
If you're improving, which I'll believe you, please spend more time on your maps and then post it on TL.
Good luck
|
On September 23 2012 18:14 Semmo wrote:
Hi. I'll just post here one last time:
I mentioned the creep tumor thing because it seemed like you were struggling with map proportions. Almost all your maps have really big mains, and lot of airspace.
I've seen almost all your maps, I've been to your map thread, and saw your maps.
You said you made this on a midnight so it's bad? Why did you upload it here? Why didn't you improve it and then post it?
And if you try to copy some of the official maps, it can be really helpful for future maps.
If you're improving, which I'll believe you, please spend more time on your maps and then post it on TL.
Good luck
Perhaps he uploaded it to see what other people think and maybe get some tips from other mappers? the map itself isnt that bad though..
|
your Country52797 Posts
@iamcaustic
Hi iamcaustic, how are you? I'm sorry to not give a valid argument, I've been sleeping a lot :0
I'm not sure the design is that bad (although my proportions might not be up to par). It is more unusual than most designs, so I'd see why you'd be nervous about it.
Also, maps without aesthetics don't take so long, at least I don't think? 
@wnio you will see the ideas in later maps, I reuse them a lot :D
@semmo I have never taken more than 16 cumulative hours to make a map, start to finish :/
Making it when I'm tired may have led to really quirky things in the design.
@monitor, nice early map :D :D
That looks much better than my first 20 maps xD
|
On September 23 2012 18:07 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 13:58 iamcaustic wrote:On September 23 2012 11:23 Fatam wrote:
Map is a pretty solid start I think, I don't see any major issues. You gonna have RF do the textures again? Honestly? There's a severe lack of understanding in general proportions (ridiculously obvious example: just look at the size of the mains compared to the rest of the map, then consider the map size), a lack of any strategy to the map (it's literally a straight path to take until each player hits at least a 4th base), and a very uninspired design overall. There's also a lot of wasted space around the edges, which ties into the proportion issue. These are just the dead obvious things to point out, too. Usually when I provide criticisms, I tend to give my own counter-arguments (either immediately or over the course of debate) and let the map maker decide which is the best path to move forward with. In this case, however, the map maker seriously should have spent a lot more time in the editor working on the layout concept and fixing many of the clearly blatant issues before presenting it publicly. The wording in the OP suggests the map was made within a single evening (and late at night, at that). Even half-decent maps aren't just made overnight. Its not that bad. The proportions are slightly off, but they do not destroy the map. You overrate proportions. An uninspired design? Tell me more about your original ideas... The community is so narrow minded and not open for experiments that you really can't create anything truly original.
Aside from under-rating how good (and conversely, bad) proportions affects a map, there was more said about why the map isn't very good than just that.
As for original ideas, that depends what qualifies as original in your book. Perhaps original is borrowing elements from an older game and experimenting to see if the idea ports well into SC2; changing the idea of how third bases should work from the current "close and open" concept to a "far but choked/defendable" one.
+ Show Spoiler +
Maybe original is building on such previous ideas and creating a new layout concept from it: third bases that are equivalent in distance and ease of defence on the ground, regardless of spawning locations.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dTn4Dl.jpg) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=348430You might note, with this being one of my earlier maps posted to TL, that there are some proportion (and consequently, layout) issues related to this map. I might go back to adjust these issues, but for now I'm busy working on new maps. Just because someone posts a map with some problems doesn't mean it can't be identified to help the mapmaker identify and resolve them. I'm only harsh in my criticism in this thread because the issues are so overtly obvious that the OP could have easily just spent more time in the editor fixing them before publicly releasing the map.
Or, perhaps original means taking really cool layout ideas and putting your own unique spin on it.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VgLyMl.jpg) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=366783Inspiration from Cloud Kingdom's very positionally-oriented layout. The idea of having many different attack paths that span the length of the map, forcing players to keep an eye out for counter-attack opportunities and avoid simply walking past your opponent's army. Well, we all know how CK works. Also included is a more refined iteration of the alternative third base layout presented in the last two maps. Two possibilities are presented: one closer and far more exposed, and another slightly further and much more choked/defendable. Oh, and on the note of "spending more time in the editor to fix blatant issues", here is what this map originally was panning out to look like: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xz6K4l.jpg) As you can see, much was changed before the map was considered polished enough to post on TL.
Or, finally, maybe original is simply taking pieces of a map layout that has been done before, but adjusting it to try and improve the concept.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nRLxGl.jpg) One of the current WIPs I'm polishing; normally wouldn't even consider posting on TL at this stage. The map itself is much further along than this screenshot shows, but I don't have a screenshot of its current progress. However, the layout hasn't changed much from what's shown there; most of the work done is texturing/aesthetics. And again, to give a demonstration of "spend more time in the editor", here's what the layout of this map looked like at first: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Lbs53l.jpg) There's nothing wrong with spending a little time working on getting map proportions right.
Originality is quite a subjective concept, and many things people consider "original" in fact have inspiration pulled from other pieces of work. The iPhone is probably an iconic example of this: the phone itself was original to the point of revolutionary in the smartphone world when it was released in 2007. However, the ideas behind it weren't concocted out of thin air; touchscreen technology had been around for years, and Microsoft was (and arguably still is) at the forefront of it in terms of quality. The smartphone concept itself was already around, obviously. Web browsing wasn't a new idea, nor was playing music from a portable device. So on and so forth. Originality for the sake of originality isn't necessary or productive. It's about how you put things together to create a product that is good. If the product isn't good, identify what is bad, then go back and fix it. On that note, this map isn't good, I've given some reasons why it isn't good, and I leave it up to the mapmaker to go back and fix it.
On September 23 2012 21:42 The_Templar wrote:
@iamcaustic
Hi iamcaustic, how are you? I'm sorry to not give a valid argument, I've been sleeping a lot :0
o_o? I am good, thank you (I hope you're well, also). What do you mean about not giving a valid argument?
On September 23 2012 21:42 The_Templar wrote:I'm not sure the design is that bad (although my proportions might not be up to par). It is more unusual than most designs, so I'd see why you'd be nervous about it. Also, maps without aesthetics don't take so long, at least I don't think?
I say it is bad because as you can see, there is only a single optimal path to the opponent's base, regardless if they're on 1, 2, or 3 bases. It is not until a player takes a 4th base that any alternative army movement becomes desirable. Even taking a map as simple in nature as Ohana:
+ Show Spoiler +
We can see that the map has two main paths in the centre of the map, separated by the high ground cliffs by the watchtowers, and connected again by an LOS blocked path in the dead centre. Even this offers a bit of choice as to which aisle to take, with each having their own advantages:
Assuming you are the top spawn, taking the left aisle opens up opportunity to move into the 4th, walk down further and get direct access to the 3rd and natural, or even utilize the 4th's high ground as a fallback point to engage the 3rd. Taking the right aisle opens opportunities to cut off the opponent's army from their 5th, allowing you to snipe it, walk toward the opponent's natural, or simply be in a good position to put pressure on the main, generally through drops or air play.
With all of that said, when we look at your map, everything prior to 4 bases utilizes the same, singular route. Once we hit 4 bases, then things get more dynamic, and once we hit 5 bases, we run into the issue where it's actually faster for your opponent to rally reinforcements to your 5th than it is for you.
Perhaps an argument can be made that people will want to utilize the high ground when engaging the 3rd instead of trying to wedge in between the natural and the third. This is absolutely plausible, but not enough for me to consider the map strategic or inspired in any way.
To iterate my point a bit better, here's an image:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dWbJOl.jpg)
Just look at the sheer amount of utility given to a single attack path and position. When looking at (again, for example) Ohana, depending on the aisle you take you can generally perform 2 of the 3 example actions I gave. Either cut off the third/hit the natural or hit the natural/drop or blink the main. Never all of them unless you split your army in half, which significantly weakens a major push.
|
@iamcaustic: I realize the point you're trying to make and obviously this map needs a better center.
But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially).
Yes the main is way too big.
|
On September 24 2012 02:28 EatThePath wrote:
@iamcaustic: I realize the point you're trying to make and obviously this map needs a better center.
But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially).
Yes the main is way too big.
It's certainly not wrong. Rather, which of those 3 options you choose depends on the opponent's army position, the matchup, and the specific all-in being performed. Do note that I'm referring to performing a 1 or 2 base all-in in that image. If we take the blink/obs PvT all-in as an example, that image completely applies. Blink harass into the main, blink out, hit the natural, move back, blink back into the main, etc. all from that positional area I circled.
ZvP, how about 7 or 8 gate all-in when Zerg takes a quick third. You most certainly do just walk right in and take a strong position. FF the natural, claim your free third, move in for the win, all from that positional area I circled.
TvT marine/tank 1 base timing. Same thing. Take that position, can hit the natural and/or start elevatoring into the main. The list goes on.
Absolutely every single one of these examples utilizes the exact same position and exact same linear path to it to execute in this case. There's no thought process to it for the person performing the all-in. You just go. When discussing possible layout issues on a map, you can't simply assume both players are playing a passive macro game where attacks only occur once both have established 3 bases and have their armies positioned at that spot (which, as you note, would likely be the natural rally location).
|
your Country52797 Posts
Ok then, I'll change the attack paths so that the same one is not used every time.
|
On September 23 2012 13:58 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 11:23 Fatam wrote:
Map is a pretty solid start I think, I don't see any major issues. You gonna have RF do the textures again? Honestly? There's a severe lack of understanding in general proportions (ridiculously obvious example: just look at the size of the mains compared to the rest of the map, then consider the map size), a lack of any strategy to the map (it's literally a straight path to take until each player hits at least a 4th base), and a very uninspired design overall. There's also a lot of wasted space around the edges, which ties into the proportion issue. These are just the dead obvious things to point out, too. Usually when I provide criticisms, I tend to give my own counter-arguments (either immediately or over the course of debate) and let the map maker decide which is the best path to move forward with. In this case, however, the map maker seriously should have spent a lot more time in the editor working on the layout concept and fixing many of the clearly blatant issues before presenting it publicly. The wording in the OP suggests the map was made within a single evening (and late at night, at that). Even half-decent maps aren't just made overnight.
lol I just said it was a "solid start" aka a decent rough draft. Middle could be more interesting, mains reduced in size (and maybe the 4th/5th areas reduced in size/brought a tad closer to the 3rd), but those are easy changes. Once that is done + it has some decor, it will be fine.
|
On September 24 2012 07:01 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 02:28 EatThePath wrote:
@iamcaustic: I realize the point you're trying to make and obviously this map needs a better center.
But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially).
Yes the main is way too big. It's certainly not wrong. Rather, which of those 3 options you choose depends on the opponent's army position, the matchup, and the specific all-in being performed. Do note that I'm referring to performing a 1 or 2 base all-in in that image. If we take the blink/obs PvT all-in as an example, that image completely applies. Blink harass into the main, blink out, hit the natural, move back, blink back into the main, etc. all from that positional area I circled. ZvP, how about 7 or 8 gate all-in when Zerg takes a quick third. You most certainly do just walk right in and take a strong position. FF the natural, claim your free third, move in for the win, all from that positional area I circled. TvT marine/tank 1 base timing. Same thing. Take that position, can hit the natural and/or start elevatoring into the main. The list goes on. Absolutely every single one of these examples utilizes the exact same position and exact same linear path to it to execute in this case. There's no thought process to it for the person performing the all-in. You just go. When discussing possible layout issues on a map, you can't simply assume both players are playing a passive macro game where attacks only occur once both have established 3 bases and have their armies positioned at that spot (which, as you note, would likely be the natural rally location).
So you're saying, sometimes that's the only attack path and sometimes not. Okay...
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 24 2012 09:43 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 07:01 iamcaustic wrote:On September 24 2012 02:28 EatThePath wrote:
@iamcaustic: I realize the point you're trying to make and obviously this map needs a better center.
But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially).
Yes the main is way too big. It's certainly not wrong. Rather, which of those 3 options you choose depends on the opponent's army position, the matchup, and the specific all-in being performed. Do note that I'm referring to performing a 1 or 2 base all-in in that image. If we take the blink/obs PvT all-in as an example, that image completely applies. Blink harass into the main, blink out, hit the natural, move back, blink back into the main, etc. all from that positional area I circled. ZvP, how about 7 or 8 gate all-in when Zerg takes a quick third. You most certainly do just walk right in and take a strong position. FF the natural, claim your free third, move in for the win, all from that positional area I circled. TvT marine/tank 1 base timing. Same thing. Take that position, can hit the natural and/or start elevatoring into the main. The list goes on. Absolutely every single one of these examples utilizes the exact same position and exact same linear path to it to execute in this case. There's no thought process to it for the person performing the all-in. You just go. When discussing possible layout issues on a map, you can't simply assume both players are playing a passive macro game where attacks only occur once both have established 3 bases and have their armies positioned at that spot (which, as you note, would likely be the natural rally location). So you're saying, sometimes that's the only attack path and sometimes not. Okay...
Nah he's right, it's the only real attack path when doing an allin, because any other path takes too long, but another path is viable in longer-game scenarios where multi pronged attacks are easier and the opposing bases get closer to you.
|
On September 24 2012 10:27 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 09:43 EatThePath wrote:On September 24 2012 07:01 iamcaustic wrote:On September 24 2012 02:28 EatThePath wrote:
@iamcaustic: I realize the point you're trying to make and obviously this map needs a better center.
But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially).
Yes the main is way too big. It's certainly not wrong. Rather, which of those 3 options you choose depends on the opponent's army position, the matchup, and the specific all-in being performed. Do note that I'm referring to performing a 1 or 2 base all-in in that image. If we take the blink/obs PvT all-in as an example, that image completely applies. Blink harass into the main, blink out, hit the natural, move back, blink back into the main, etc. all from that positional area I circled. ZvP, how about 7 or 8 gate all-in when Zerg takes a quick third. You most certainly do just walk right in and take a strong position. FF the natural, claim your free third, move in for the win, all from that positional area I circled. TvT marine/tank 1 base timing. Same thing. Take that position, can hit the natural and/or start elevatoring into the main. The list goes on. Absolutely every single one of these examples utilizes the exact same position and exact same linear path to it to execute in this case. There's no thought process to it for the person performing the all-in. You just go. When discussing possible layout issues on a map, you can't simply assume both players are playing a passive macro game where attacks only occur once both have established 3 bases and have their armies positioned at that spot (which, as you note, would likely be the natural rally location). So you're saying, sometimes that's the only attack path and sometimes not. Okay... Nah he's right, it's the only real attack path when doing an allin, because any other path takes too long, but another path is viable in longer-game scenarios where multi pronged attacks are easier and the opposing bases get closer to you.
Oh I don't disagree, there could be better routes. But every map has one generic all-in attack path: the shortest one. And by definition the main is easily accessible via blink or drop if you are near the natural, because main bases and naturals are usually proximate.
|
Except that a Protoss 8 Gate all-in takes a different route against a 3-base zerg than it would against a 2-base zerg (why are you 8 gating 0.o) or depending on what they wanted to do. Pressuring the 3rd vs cutting off the 3rd vs trying to go up into the main.
Here no matter what you want to do you still only want to get to one location.
It definitely opens up to become more interesting on 4 bases, but I agree that this is too late.
I also agree that this has some proportion issues, but reasonable starts overall.
I won't be up for doing the aesthetics on this or many maps in the future except for maybe some collaborative maps, I've recently had a change in how I look at the mapping scene (thread on this to come).
If you get a skype I'd be more than happy to go over how I do texturing and doodads so that you can learn :D
|
On September 24 2012 11:53 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 10:27 The_Templar wrote:On September 24 2012 09:43 EatThePath wrote:On September 24 2012 07:01 iamcaustic wrote:On September 24 2012 02:28 EatThePath wrote:
@iamcaustic: I realize the point you're trying to make and obviously this map needs a better center.
But that picture is just wrong. If you're trying to split the 3rd off from the main/nat, you can't just march into the front like that, that's where their army will be. At this point you'll have to use the high ground -- a different path. And you might as well use the high ground to send a distraction / light harass into the 3rd mineral line by the far 2ramp. (imo this should have rocks because that creates too much vulnerability initially).
Yes the main is way too big. It's certainly not wrong. Rather, which of those 3 options you choose depends on the opponent's army position, the matchup, and the specific all-in being performed. Do note that I'm referring to performing a 1 or 2 base all-in in that image. If we take the blink/obs PvT all-in as an example, that image completely applies. Blink harass into the main, blink out, hit the natural, move back, blink back into the main, etc. all from that positional area I circled. ZvP, how about 7 or 8 gate all-in when Zerg takes a quick third. You most certainly do just walk right in and take a strong position. FF the natural, claim your free third, move in for the win, all from that positional area I circled. TvT marine/tank 1 base timing. Same thing. Take that position, can hit the natural and/or start elevatoring into the main. The list goes on. Absolutely every single one of these examples utilizes the exact same position and exact same linear path to it to execute in this case. There's no thought process to it for the person performing the all-in. You just go. When discussing possible layout issues on a map, you can't simply assume both players are playing a passive macro game where attacks only occur once both have established 3 bases and have their armies positioned at that spot (which, as you note, would likely be the natural rally location). So you're saying, sometimes that's the only attack path and sometimes not. Okay... Nah he's right, it's the only real attack path when doing an allin, because any other path takes too long, but another path is viable in longer-game scenarios where multi pronged attacks are easier and the opposing bases get closer to you. Oh I don't disagree, there could be better routes. But every map has one generic all-in attack path: the shortest one. And by definition the main is easily accessible via blink or drop if you are near the natural, because main bases and naturals are usually proximate.
I suggest you read my previous post that compared Ohana with this map. You could also look at a map like Cloud Kingdom. An attack path for an all-in is the shortest one that works for what you're trying to do. On many maps, including Ohana and Cloud Kingdom, that isn't always the exact same path every time. On this map, it is.
Let's look at Cloud Kingdom in greater detail: I sometimes do a marine/hellion/viking 1 base all-in in TvT that goes to the third and elevators into the main to punish a gasless FE. The reason I go around to the third is to avoid being detected for as long as possible. If I wanted to bust into the natural, I wouldn't loop around to the third and instead head straight up the ramp closest to the tower. When I cause my opponent to retreat back into the main, my reinforcements head straight into the natural, which is a different path taken from my initial push. Doing this kind of all-in on this map, it'd be the same path taken. Initial push would just elevator and the reinforcements would just keep pushing forward up the ramp.
Hitting a third with a bust (e.g. 7 or 8 gate vs Z) on Cloud Kingdom. You could choose to either bust right up the ramp at the third, or bust up the ramp at the natural to cut the opponent off between the nat and third. To do either on this map, you take the same path and move into the same spot.
So on and so forth. It's good to see that the mapmaker recognizes this, though. 
|
your Country52797 Posts
This is the latest map I could find that I posted on TL.
I have finally dug myself out of the giant pit of schoolwork + minecraft that I found myself in back in October and gone back to mapmaking.
I've made some updates to this map that hopefully improve its design.
Some changes/issues I may fix the next time I have time:
-Aesthetics
-Ridges in the middle might make the map too tight
-Some cliffs and ramps don't feel right.
As always, I welcome feedback and discussion, but I won't have time to make drastic changes until I create maps for the mapmaking contest in May.
|
You may want to have someone help you with aesthetics on this one. I don't the water thing works out too good on maps. It obscures vision.
|
On April 20 2013 11:32 lorestarcraft wrote:
You may want to have someone help you with aesthetics on this one. I don't the water thing works out too good on maps. It obscures vision.
It also really cuts down on FPS. I think that's the main reason the water was removed on Ohana before Blizzard put it on the ladder.
|
On September 23 2012 00:49 The_Templar wrote:
I made this really late last night, I'd be surprised that it's coherant.
Also it's better than you think... have you seen some of my maps? >_<
I only have one suggestion to give: don't make map threads for maps that are clearly under-developed and have little time or effort put into them. We have the Work In Progress thread for this sort of content. You're also more than welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help or tips with your maps; I'm busy as of late so I may reply a bit slow sometimes, but I'll definitely reply.
|
On April 20 2013 19:06 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 00:49 The_Templar wrote:
I made this really late last night, I'd be surprised that it's coherant.
Also it's better than you think... have you seen some of my maps? >_< I only have one suggestion to give: don't make map threads for maps that are clearly under-developed and have little time or effort put into them. We have the Work In Progress thread for this sort of content. You're also more than welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help or tips with your maps; I'm busy as of late so I may reply a bit slow sometimes, but I'll definitely reply.
Look at this thread's date... Also you already replied here 
|
On April 20 2013 19:48 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 19:06 iamcaustic wrote:On September 23 2012 00:49 The_Templar wrote:
I made this really late last night, I'd be surprised that it's coherant.
Also it's better than you think... have you seen some of my maps? >_< I only have one suggestion to give: don't make map threads for maps that are clearly under-developed and have little time or effort put into them. We have the Work In Progress thread for this sort of content. You're also more than welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help or tips with your maps; I'm busy as of late so I may reply a bit slow sometimes, but I'll definitely reply. Look at this thread's date...
Wait.. why... why is this map being posted on then? o_o Good eye, moskonia. Past midnight here, so I didn't notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lkXthl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XQynS.jpg)
