EPTCurrent version 1.1
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tFy6YMb.jpg)
Sorry not much aesthetics this time.
Bounds : 136*160
Xelnagas : 0
Various minerals formation , 6m1g bases.
V1.0 + Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eVnpQ89.jpg)
[M] (2) Wrong place
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
Current version 1.1 Sorry not much aesthetics this time. Bounds : 136*160 Xelnagas : 0 Various minerals formation , 6m1g bases. V1.0 + Show Spoiler + | ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
| ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24238 Posts
On October 26 2014 02:49 The_Templar wrote: I'll be the first to admit that I thought the starting locations were in the top left and bottom right high ground and got really confused. ^^ Me too. I was thinking "this map is garbage, how do you ever expand in PvZ ?"  As it is the map looks interesting, especially the not so much exposed gold. It's hard to say anything relevant on it before playing it. I'll try and play some games on it with my practice partner tomorrow (PvZ). I'll let you know how it goes ^^ | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
Making the 6m bases normal gas yield is a good choice imo | ||
|
Quidios
Sweden74 Posts
| ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
I guess the choice of using smaller bases really makes this much easier to balance. | ||
|
sTYleZerG-eX
Mexico473 Posts
| ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
snexwang
Australia224 Posts
| ||
|
Quidios
Sweden74 Posts
On October 26 2014 03:47 Xenotolerance wrote: It's a cool adaptation. I agree that the map concept changes when you remove the corner pathways, but I see that as a necessary change to adapt to SC2. Maybe you could keep them somehow with rocks if you brought those bases down to middle elevation. No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins. | ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
On October 26 2014 10:22 Quidios wrote: No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins. If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On October 26 2014 13:26 Xenotolerance wrote: If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable. It's blocked by neutral DTs in the BW version, this allows workers to mineral walk through to take the backdoor expansion but blocks all other ground units. | ||
|
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7524 Posts
| ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
| ||
|
Quidios
Sweden74 Posts
On October 26 2014 13:26 Xenotolerance wrote: If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable. You're missing the point. The issue is not if that ramp has rocks on it or not, it's the location of it. Rocks doesn't help it outside the the early early game. How you design the actual backdoor is another matter. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3491 Posts
Air distance is quite close, but you can adapt. | ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
| ||
|
FrozenProbe
Italy276 Posts
| ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
On October 29 2014 18:09 FrozenProbe wrote: Flying Shark is Needed 0/10 would not play on this map ! | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Only thing that worries me is the Gold, if the Zerg can grab a Gold from the start its really troublesome. Thats why I would always place a destructible rock plate there to prevent that. Might not be an issue on this map though, because you may be able to punish it by going for air. I want this map on Ladder actually heh. For the name alone. | ||
|
FrozenProbe
Italy276 Posts
| ||
| ||
