Wow this is really creative and different, nice work. I think monitors ideas are pretty spot on. Its nice to see some broodwar-y features.

If I were to make suggestions, it would be just to open up the one choke like monitor is suggesting, but for the 3rd base and the watchtower, i might extend the little platform with the tower a bit and put another ramp on the other side, so that taking it is the only way to attack into the 3rd. You could then make that choke even smaller so roaches/spines/cannons could defend from on top of that platform.

FlaShFTW

United States10021 Posts

October 04 2012 00:34 GMT

#22

On October 03 2012 03:45 thezanursic wrote:
I'm sorry, but all these maps look so alike it's all well and good, but map design isn't going anywhere.

BW maps were still evolving 12 years after it's release and we stagnated 2 years after release. Very sad.

wat? the brood war map pool has been pretty stagnant with only interesting maps being really imbalanced ones. and they all are becoming the same thing with just different tileset and centers.

Example: Fighting Spirit = La Mancha = Jade

Need I say more?

PsykoMantis

United States203 Posts

October 04 2012 01:43 GMT

#23

Personally, don't know how much merit there will be to this suggestion but, if you want to keep the map fairly "chokey" then remove the XNTs. For a map of this size I don't see there any harm from having no XNTs. Just more active scouting and army movement like you want.

Drake Merrwin

Canada130 Posts

October 04 2012 02:33 GMT

#24

Sweet map. I actually think the only problem is the 1 little ramp leading into the 4th. If it was facing toward the choke leading into it rather than the wall of the other main it would make army movement between the 4th and a potential 5th would be some what easier. If that watch tower wasn't there I don't think this maps 3rd would be accessible. Now that I think of it, giving a player vision might be a nice way to make the 3rd easy enough to take but still give the possibility of pressure. Cool. I might try something like that.

I need to know how you got that smooth white texture because I need something like that. It's the only thing holding me back from finishing this map i'm working on. I can't find it for the life of me.

plasmidghost

Belgium16168 Posts

October 04 2012 04:00 GMT

#25

Everything I noticed was basically already covered beforehand, but overall, I think it's a really cool map. I don't like the. XNTs, though. One thing I want to see more of are maps with no NXTs, or those that expire after a certain time, like in Xel'Naga Fortress. Perhaps this map could have the tower expire after 10 minutes gametime. Since I recently accidentally destroyed my graphics card, I have a question: Do the XNTs give vision all the way to the edge of the map? If so, that would really nullify drop play, I think, if the terran player didn't have the XNT, and if, for instance, spawned at 4 while the opponent spawned at 7.
Reading my post back, it sounds a little confusing to me. What I want to know firsthand is if drop play's even viable on this map. It's fine if it's not, I was just curious.

-NegativeZero-

United States2141 Posts

October 04 2012 05:48 GMT

#26

On October 04 2012 11:33 Drake Merrwin wrote:
I need to know how you got that smooth white texture because I need something like that. It's the only thing holding me back from finishing this map i'm working on. I can't find it for the life of me.

Pretty sure it's either a custom texture or something from the HotS beta maps.

AssyrianKing

Australia2111 Posts

October 04 2012 13:15 GMT

#27

I LOVE YOUR MAPS!

Fetchystick

United States43 Posts

October 04 2012 17:20 GMT

#28

I know some people were talking about closing off the third or putting rocks there, and then everyone started complaining about that "closing off attack patterns". One Idea I have: since we're close to HoTS coming out, why not slap a destructible rock tower there (the rocks that cover part of the area, and when destroyed, make rocks that cover the whole thing).

Other than that absolutely fantastic map.

LarJarsE

United States1378 Posts

October 04 2012 17:23 GMT

#29

wow I love the brood war feel of this map! bravo!

Kommatiazo

United States579 Posts

October 04 2012 18:05 GMT

#30

Just a side note, does the title have to do with this?
[image loading]

Silencioseu

Cyprus493 Posts

October 04 2012 18:15 GMT

#31

wow, one of the best map design i've seen

Meerel

Germany713 Posts

October 04 2012 19:46 GMT

#32

wow dudes, so many opinions. im kinda overwhelmed now, not sure what to do hehe.

the name is ofc from metallica @Kommatiazo but it actually has a meaning on a 4 player rota dont you think?^^ (i thought it fits perfectly)

i will release the texture pack later for everyone who asked.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

October 05 2012 00:20 GMT

#33

It's a little cramped and windy. You have to offer a choice of 4th bases if you're not going to offer choice of 3rds, and I'd like more path options between players other than 1. low ground lane 2. center control. If the center didn't have the path block in the middle (pure open ground) it's be a good start. This doesn't address the suspect positional balance / expansion options though.

The reason I don't like the limited route options is that SC2 games are already quite heavily influenced by the winner of big engagements. If you win a big fight (probably near the middle), here you automatically have map control and it cuts off every expansion beyond their 3 bases.

Fetchystick

United States43 Posts

October 05 2012 14:32 GMT

#34

Is that a 6m1hyg fourth? Pretty neat, forces people to take a fifth base (which, as everyone has mentioned, is tricky) thus splitting up the armies a TON in the lategame. Absolutely love this map and wish I was on EU server so I could try it out.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

October 05 2012 21:11 GMT

#35

I like monitor's ideas. I don't think I've seen anything like the dead-end expansions that he's describing on a 4P rotational map.

Although, if you follow through with those suggested changes, you may also want to consider changing the towers. I just had a little idea: you could keep them in the same general location, but lower the terrain to ground level, and put a ditch around it, so the only way to access it would be to go to the middle high ground, then walk down a 1x ramp. Units by the third would be able to see the tower, but would have to go around if they wanted to activate it. Only downside I can think of at this moment is Siege Tanks abusing it, but in its current state, if Siege Tanks get there, they would be more powerful. The difference would be that it would be easier for Siege Tanks to push to the third, but more risky at the same time. With my suggested change, if you put aggressive tanks there, and then the enemy attacks the middle, they will get cut off, which would definitely add RvR, make games more interesting, and make the tower less defensive.

AssyrianKing

Australia2111 Posts

October 06 2012 05:11 GMT

#36

I would personally get rid of the Towers, they just grant too much vision in such a limited amount of space~
I must say Roach drops would work so cool here against Mech, followed by a nice surround

Oiseaux

United States676 Posts

October 06 2012 05:49 GMT

#37

My only suggestion other than the 4th critiques already given would be to not have it named so obnoxiously (which wouldn't be the case if you hadn't included the "icon" so-to-speak next to the name in the title graphic).