EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KXksUdS.png)
1v1
152 x 136
12 regular bases
3 gold bases
3 desctructible rocks
2 collapsible rock towers
EU | NA | KR | SEA
"VARS 4 life" - Barrin
+ Show Spoiler [Analyser] +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6m69Exe.png)
+ Show Spoiler [Pictures] +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1IG1JoC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qpF0XgO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mMXhUJS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ouf8IjD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ho3PIZr.jpg)
glhf
[M] (2) Destiny
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
1v1 152 x 136 12 regular bases 3 gold bases 3 desctructible rocks 2 collapsible rock towers EU | NA | KR | SEA "VARS 4 life" - Barrin + Show Spoiler [Analyser] + + Show Spoiler [Pictures] + glhf | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
The fact that the bottom gold base does not symmetrically place the geysers bothers me more than it should. Each geyser should be on separate sides imo. | ||
|
LComteVarauG
Australia158 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
| ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
On April 24 2015 00:40 Antares777 wrote: This map looks like a lot of fun to play on! I love the layout. The fact that the bottom gold base does not symmetrically place the geysers bothers me more than it should. Each geyser should be on separate sides imo. The geysers are an And G thing  | ||
|
SeinGalton
South Africa387 Posts
A few reservations here however: 1) the way you set up that top-most pathway between the golds makes them really hard to take since they become far too harassable for such forward bases -- I'd drop the rock towers and keep that whole pathway highground instead of having that awkward dip; 2) I'd make the little bridge just south of the golds a tile or two wider, nerfing the XNT importance by a fraction whilst keeping mid-map awareness really important; 3) the LOS'd pods in the main are overkill -- drops and nydus plays already seem quite strong and I think with this kinda close-by-air setup smaller more manageable mains add early game stability; 4) while the base placement is great, the pathways and general proportions between them are kinda bland and monotonous and I'd love to see the map show of a little more attitude in its terrain progression, more variation in openness and a little more complexity to how different areas slot into one another; 5) concomitant to 4) I'd bet the whole map could be a tile or two tighter, but this is minor; 5) and finally I'd just echo what Antares said and voice negligible preference for symmetric gasses on the southern gold. But I still think it's solid and very cleverly thought out. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
 The naturals ramp to the center is maybe a little bit too small for late game armies to get through comfortably. Perhaps you could double that ramp in size and add destructible debries? Later on this ramp will become a real bottleneck I fear. Part of the central map idea is to move the action towards the bottom half, away from the direct line between the mains/naturals, and the narrow forward ramp helps with that. I'm also not a big fan of rocks that cover ramps only partially, and a two-width ramp from the beginning would be too much. If it proves to be a problem then I'll think of something, but for the time being I'll keep it like it is. the way you set up that top-most pathway between the golds makes them really hard to take since they become far too harassable for such forward bases It's important here to differentiate between harassing and attacking. Imagine a ZvP on Habitation Station where Zerg takes the gold as the third while Protoss goes for two-based aggression. If the Protoss attack succeeds, Zerg is likely to lose the gold and ~20 drones since the attack hits in the space between gold and natural, so the drones have nowhere to run. Furthermore, Zerg now needs to expand which is difficult since the Protoss army sits right at the bottom of the natural ramp, preventing Zerg from moving out with inferior forces. Now imagine the same situation on Destiny with Protoss attacking through the northern pathway. It's easier to deny mining time and even kill the hatchery than on Habitation Station, however it is next to impossible to kill all the drones as well. Zerg now has little trouble expanding to the vertical low ground third instead since the Protoss army is in no position to deny that expansion going down and the natural is easily defended. With the drones still alive, as long as the gold paid for itself this is still something of a win for Zerg since taking the regular third later also means it will mine out later, which puts Zerg under less pressure to take a quick fourth and fifth. So in effect, the gold on Destiny is easier to harass than on Habitation Station, but more difficult to attack (or to be more precise, it's more difficult to hurt a player by attacking the gold). The rock tower further enhances this dynamic: An inferior harassing force can break it down to protect itself from a superior defending force and deny mining at the gold for longer, while an inferior defending force can break it down to slow down a superior attacking force and keep it from attacking the natural or regular third. That being said, I might still remove the rock towers since I generally don't like those things very much (although I do seem to use them more frequently lately). I'd like to see more opinions on this, or preferably replays. the LOS'd pods in the main are overkill They're mostly a Metalopolis nostalgia thing; I guess I'll get rid of them... while the base placement is great, the pathways and general proportions between them are kinda bland and monotonous and I'd love to see the map show of a little more attitude in its terrain progression, more variation in openness and a little more complexity to how different areas slot into one another I was going for something standard-ish that could easily be understood by looking at the overview, especially compared to the map it's most closely related to, The Path Not Taken. My main concern right now is that it might too good for Zerg, what with that pretty open central U shape from the golds to the watchtower area, so if I'm going to change anything it will likely be related to that. Maybe I'll even get some useful feedback from the TLMC strategy team, who knows. I'd bet the whole map could be a tile or two tighter No way. It can't be seen from the overview, but as with all my other maps there are 5 grids of airspace on all sides, so the pathable area actually fits into a 142x126 rectangle -- on 15 bases, one less than Frost/Whirlwind/etc. This is map is pretty damn tight already.  I'm surprised no one has complained about the lacklustre aesthetics yet! I guess I know what my next couple of maps will look like... | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4nTcZWc.png) Not sure if this isn't a little too cute/complicated. Also really unsure about the rock towers, but the LOS blockers will definitely be gone. Poll: Which version is better? New version (with collapsible towers) (4) Old version (with collapsible towers) (1) Old version (no collapsible towers) (1) New version (no collapsible towers) (0) 6 total votes Your vote: Which version is better? (Vote): Old version (with collapsible towers) | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Does it have any destiny (pazzuzu) at all in it too .. or not? | ||
| ||
