EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7mkLyDR.jpg)
HD link
60 Degree Overview
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wlfKQT1.jpg)
Bases
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h4Vsegr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CZzLkPx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wx3gJLU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4C24kme.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TEoZkEl.jpg)
(4) CruX Light Breeze
Created by Ovalient
Published KR, US
Playable 160 x 160
Finally, I created 'Whirlwind'+'Cactus Valley'
hahaha
[M] (4) CruX Light Breeze
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Ovalient
Korea (South)64 Posts
HD link 60 Degree Overview + Show Spoiler + Bases + Show Spoiler + (4) CruX Light Breeze Created by Ovalient Published KR, US Playable 160 x 160 Finally, I created 'Whirlwind'+'Cactus Valley' hahaha | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 26 2015 23:20 [PkF] Wire wrote: Really nice map. But isn't that 3rd/4th pattern becoming a bit too common ? I seem to see it in a lot of recent maps (natural ramp leading to a double ramp with one side leading to 3rd, the other leading to 4th). I would normally agree, but the use of gold bases is pretty clever here. It makes the player want to take the base in the middle of the map as their 4th, breaking up the monotony you normally get with this design. This is how you do a gold base in my opinion. Also, this map is not what I was expecting at all, I was hoping for a small, 2-spawn version of Breeze. At least the map is cool enough to make up for it, I like the stuff going on in the middle. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
sTYleZerG-eX
Mexico473 Posts
| ||
|
Ovalient
Korea (South)64 Posts
On October 26 2015 23:20 [PkF] Wire wrote: Really nice map. But isn't that 3rd/4th pattern becoming a bit too common ? I seem to see it in a lot of recent maps (natural ramp leading to a double ramp with one side leading to 3rd, the other leading to 4th). Well... First, I build 4-spawned map, I want to create no advantage to spawn horizonal or vertical. And also I want to create fresh and unique 4-spawned map. So I had been checking the distance between natural to 3rd/4th. And I consider how I could create fresh map. I had been created 3rd/4th to 2nd floor, and 1st floor again and again. 2nd floor 3rd/4th base seem to see like Whirlwind, 1st floor 3rd/4th base seem to see like Cactus Valley. So I give up that creating fresh map, but I have some change through gold base. First, you have the 3rd base, and you can choice another base between gold base and ordinary base. I really wish to notice that feature, guys  It can be your answer? I don't no I worte correct english.. | ||
|
Ovalient
Korea (South)64 Posts
On October 27 2015 01:40 sTYleZerG-eX wrote: I like the map, I dont see the point if the rocks tho You know that center ramps are really huge. I think center ramps without the rock, can put the 5 Forcefield and over i guess. So I think earlier time of the game, that ramp be smaller. Then Protoss can fight with little sentry. And long time of the game, Terran or Zerg break that rocks, then they can fight really huge strength without thinking of Forcefield. I consider that creating this map. | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
| ||
|
SwedenTheKid
567 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
sTYleZerG-eX
Mexico473 Posts
On October 27 2015 12:31 Fatam wrote: Very nice, solid map. My only issue is that I don't think we should be making 4p maps anymore at all, they are pretty bad for LOTV. I disagree, 4 player maps are fine imo. If players are whining about about the urgency to scout fast they should really just send 2 worker scouts. I remember players doing this back in BW and it worked fine for those players that wanted to be extra safe. (I am aware sc2 is different, but still) You can't just stop making 4 maps omg, many guys here strongly dislike the other option 3 maps (they are asymmetrical etc) and that leaves us with only 2 player maps? | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
You can't just stop making 4 maps omg, many guys here strongly dislike the other option 3 maps (they are asymmetrical etc) and that leaves us with only 2 player maps? Well 4p maps only limit you really. Any 4p map concept can be made into a 2p map with more interesting corners. So it's not like making only 2p maps would be some huge limiting thing in the mapmaking community. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 28 2015 15:56 Fatam wrote: Well 4p maps only limit you really. Any 4p map concept can be made into a 2p map with more interesting corners. So it's not like making only 2p maps would be some huge limiting thing in the mapmaking community. 4 player maps aren't going anywhere. 2 player maps might be easier to make, but in game a player doesn't think about what it was like to make them. 2 player maps might have more variety in design, but they have no variety in spawn positions. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On October 29 2015 02:46 NewSunshine wrote: 2 player maps might have more variety in design, but they have no variety in spawn positions. i think that's a good thing, it removes randomness and asymmetry. 2p maps with unique spawn locations can also be made (for instance "close air spawns" as on habitation station). | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
On October 28 2015 15:56 Fatam wrote: Well 4p maps only limit you really. Any 4p map concept can be made into a 2p map with more interesting corners. So it's not like making only 2p maps would be some huge limiting thing in the mapmaking community. You can't make a 4p map into a 2p map with different corners unless the 4p is cross position only. I do agree 4p is limiting but it definitely has a unique and valuable dynamic imo. You can't make achieve a balanced asymmetrical 2p map like you can in a close position rotational symmetry 4p map. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 29 2015 06:13 -NegativeZero- wrote: i think that's a good thing, it removes randomness and asymmetry. 2p maps with unique spawn locations can also be made (for instance "close air spawns" as on habitation station). If you're hung up on asymmetry, you can still do mirror maps. I've never bought the argument that having to scout to find your opponent is a game-breaking proposition. I'm with Monitor on this one, making a map with 4 spawns naturally limits what you can design into your map, but they have something to offer that 2 spawn maps don't. There's a reason they've been a thing since BW, and I shouldn't have to justify that. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
On October 29 2015 08:34 monitor wrote: You can't make a 4p map into a 2p map with different corners unless the 4p is cross position only. I do agree 4p is limiting but it definitely has a unique and valuable dynamic imo. You can't make achieve a balanced asymmetrical 2p map like you can in a close position rotational symmetry 4p map. Thing is, basically all 4p maps end up being cross-only if used in competitive play long enough. I thought this was an obvious part of my argument (and hence the 4p = 2p with more boring corners) but I guess I should have specified. There's a reason they've [4p maps] been a thing since BW, and I shouldn't have to justify that. Yes but there's never been a time where not getting lucky with the initial scout can make the game so coinflippy until now. That's the huge difference. Also, IMO any comments about 2p maps being easier to make should be omitted from discussion. It's not relevant at all. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On October 29 2015 19:01 Fatam wrote: Thing is, basically all 4p maps end up being cross-only if used in competitive play long enough. I thought this was an obvious part of my argument (and hence the 4p = 2p with more boring corners) but I guess I should have specified. Yes but there's never been a time where not getting lucky with the initial scout can make the game so coinflippy until now. That's the huge difference. Also, IMO any comments about 2p maps being easier to make should be omitted from discussion. It's not relevant at all. In my experience, creating a 2p map is often like trying to figure out a math equation. I hate math, and I always get multiple answers that I don't know which answer is absolutely correct to go with. 4p is limiting in terms of spawn points. If asymmetry was allowed in 4p maps I would probably never make a 2p map again. The only "asymmetric" experience I have is Khalis... Totally symmetrical with small differences in terrain height. And it's still cross spawn. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 29 2015 19:01 Fatam wrote: Thing is, basically all 4p maps end up being cross-only if used in competitive play long enough. I thought this was an obvious part of my argument (and hence the 4p = 2p with more boring corners) but I guess I should have specified. Yes you should have. A 4p map being cross-spawn only is something you can't take for granted, hell it's something you shouldn't want to take for granted as a mapmaker. When you design a 4p map you design it so that multiple spawn positions are possible, period. You know this. On October 29 2015 19:01 Fatam wrote: Yes but there's never been a time where not getting lucky with the initial scout can make the game so coinflippy until now. That's the huge difference. Also, IMO any comments about 2p maps being easier to make should be omitted from discussion. It's not relevant at all. I am not about to cut out an entire section of maps from my repertoire because of some change in the game. We need to be pushing for more map diversity, not less. If that doesn't jive with the way balance sits right now, then let Blizzard handle it. They're the ones saying they want to push map diversity. Either way, you aren't about to convince me to stop making 4p maps, should I so choose to do. | ||
| ||
