EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8ZTcnCu.jpg)
[M] (3) Crux Merry-go-round - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
winpark
Korea (South)68 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
 Keep it up! | ||
|
TheFlexN
Israel472 Posts
| ||
|
zelevin
United States321 Posts
| ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
| ||
|
MrBarryObama
Korea (South)141 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10528 Posts
nice work. | ||
|
DaRKMaTT3r
Brazil553 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 17 2014 10:01 DaRKMaTT3r wrote: The space behind/around the bottom base is massive! Is it like that or is just the picture? Brings back bad memories of Broodlords sieging my 3rd on Daybreak from unreachable space. Pretty sure the energy wall surrounding the map signifies the air boundaries. There is such a thing as un-pathable air. | ||
|
L3monsta
New Zealand149 Posts
On February 14 2014 07:19 zelevin wrote: Dang it! I'm tired of seeing all of these great maps on the forums and never seeing them in tournaments or on ladder! Are 3 player maps ever used in tournaments? I don't recall ever seeing one in a tournament.. | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
On February 17 2014 11:39 L3monsta wrote: Are 3 player maps ever used in tournaments? I don't recall ever seeing one in a tournament.. Testbug | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
Also, Xel'Naga Fortress. | ||
|
zelevin
United States321 Posts
On February 17 2014 11:39 L3monsta wrote: Are 3 player maps ever used in tournaments? I don't recall ever seeing one in a tournament.. Traditional use isn't necessarily good. Even if Testbug and Xel'naga Fortress didn't exist, the lack of 3 player maps isn't a reason to not use it; it's a reason TO use it! All the "problems" in Starcraft are being blamed on the maps, and I think that I am right when I say we need something different. This map is completely different, and it would add a great deal of variety in the game play -- which is what blizzard tried to do with Alterzim and Deadbase (Daedalus). | ||
|
MidnightZL
Sweden203 Posts
 | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
| ||
|
TheFlexN
Israel472 Posts
On March 27 2014 06:20 algue wrote: ALL HAIL THE FIRST 3 PLAYERS MAP ON THE LADDER ! Its the 2nd, never forget Elysium, 27 July 2010. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 27 2014 07:36 moskonia wrote: I never really understood the hype of 3 player maps, I don't really see the advantage they give over 2 player maps or more so to 4 player maps with no close spawns which basically make it a 3 spawn map with no spawn position advantage. Anyways the map does look decent, and congraz on getting into the ladder with it. 4p with no close spawns is essentially a 2p map. The main thing a 3p map does is the exact opposite of a 4p mirror map. With 4p mirror you have multiple spawn combinations, and everything is perfectly symmetric between the two players every time. With 3p you can only have close spawns, the difference is merely which side you're on, and asymmetry has to be accepted because there's no other way. Just depends on what you're looking for and this time, Blizzard wants the latter. | ||
|
zelevin
United States321 Posts
On February 20 2014 09:41 zelevin wrote: Traditional use isn't necessarily good. Even if Testbug and Xel'naga Fortress didn't exist, the lack of 3 player maps isn't a reason to not use it; it's a reason TO use it! All the "problems" in Starcraft are being blamed on the maps, and I think that I am right when I say we need something different. This map is completely different, and it would add a great deal of variety in the game play -- which is what blizzard tried to do with Alterzim and Deadbase (Daedalus). ... Oh my god... Blizzard saw what I saw... | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On March 27 2014 07:54 NewSunshine wrote: 4p with no close spawns is essentially a 2p map. The main thing a 3p map does is the exact opposite of a 4p mirror map. With 4p mirror you have multiple spawn combinations, and everything is perfectly symmetric between the two players every time. With 3p you can only have close spawns, the difference is merely which side you're on, and asymmetry has to be accepted because there's no other way. Just depends on what you're looking for and this time, Blizzard wants the latter. I still don't see a point in 3 player maps. Having rotational spawns mean there is luck involved, unlike mirror symmetry, which normally it is best to scout the close spawns first, thus negating luck while still allowing multiple spawns. 2 in 1 maps reduce the luck factor even more, which is good imo. I am all for asymmetry, but I think rotational symmetry is the wrong way to achieve it. In my opinion the reason people are so excited for a 3 player map is the same reason people were so excited about New Polaris, because it's new and weird, and it's a cool gimmick. While seeing it in shourcraft clan wars have made me gain much more respect for the map, I still keep the opinion that the reason it won the poll was because of a gimmick and not map quality. IMO 3 player maps with rotational symmetry (as well as rotational symmetry in general) is a silly concept, and there is nothing it does better than 2 player asymmetrical maps or 4 player maps with 1 spawn disabled. | ||
| ||
