|
Whoa.
I have been drafting a massive feedback list for the finalists, but a lot of what I had to say has already been covered and my feedback may not be as in depth as some of the other posts already here. I haven't had enough time to make any diagrams or anything like that. I don't want to seem repetitious, but I am going to be posting my thoughts on the finalists sometime later today when I am back at my desktop. I hope that my thoughts can still be useful for the mapmakers, even if I'm completely wrong 
Gotta re-read some of this thread and get caught-up first though! I am also behind on the map tournament as well, gotta get caught up and watch those VODs.
EDIT: My thoughts on the maps (obligatory wall-of-text warning):
Treachery
Excellent macro map. Not too large or too limited in expansion paths. Might possibly be Zerg favored due to the total number of bases being so high at 18 and the size being large. I feel like we need more data in order to determine balance. What I like about this map though is the excellent use of space and terrain.
16-Bit
Interesting aesthetics that are easy on the eyes. I feel like the map is too open in some areas, and am therefore worried about balance.
Kherrisan Rift
Interesting design with flanking pathways around the edges of the map, and more of a fixed third expansion. My initial thoughts are that this map is too choked and restrictive in its pathways for it to be balanced, which is why it did not make it on my shortlist for predicted finalists.
Para Site
I love the layout here, it is relatively creative and forces players to be very map aware so that they are not caught off guard or out of position since there is not defined center or single fastest ground route from base to base. At the same time, the pathways are not too restricted. Though the layouts are not similar, I want to draw some comparisons to maps like Galactic Process, Cloud Kingdom, and Echo. These maps all focus strongly on army position and movement, as seen by their layouts and expansion locations. Currently the natural's mineral line can be hit from the low ground by Siege Tanks, which could end up being a balance issue. This was seen in one of the tournament games, I think it was a TvT but I forget.
Blueshift
Full disclaimer, this is my favorite map not only of the finalists but also of all the submissions. This made it on my shortlist at the number one spot pretty easily for me, and I will now explain why this map is amazing. The expansions are relatively static with only two ambiguous ones located in the corners. The central corridor shows an excellent understanding of risk vs reward to force players to make choices when deciding how to move around the map. The fastest route is the most risky because it is on low ground surrounded by high ground and forces units through those 2x sized ramps. There is another risk vs reward factor here regarding commitment. If you take the fastest route, there are no other routes other than back the way you came. This means if you want to reposition your units, you would have to go all the way back. This changes when the rocks are destroyed in the later game. Another reason why I love this map is that is wastes almost no map space. What I mean by wasted space is space that is unpathable. Wasted space is something that can become a problem if used excessively. This map uses space so efficiently that the only wasted space exists in some small areas around the boundary of the map.
Fracture
The overview does not do this map justice for the level of texturing detail on it. It's very pretty. This map is very standard and was designed well. The third is fixed as a forward third, which may end up being an issue in some matchups. The map is good, but I feel like it could use some touching up and then it would become great. The touching up that I would propose is modifying the layout slightly to make the low ground third easier to secure so that the map no longer has a fixed third and more of a choice of thirds. Generally speaking, the forward third should be more difficult to expand to than the third located further away from your opponent. Here, the forward third is closer by ground ground distance to the natural than the low ground third, and army positioning is easier and less stressful on the defender to maneuver armies to defend the forward third and natural than the safe third and natural. I would suggest pushing the low ground third closer to the natural and maybe even changing the orientation of the nearby ramp to make more space to accommodate this change. As an alternative to this suggested change, you could keep the current fixed third as the desired third and redesign the low ground base as an intended fourth.
Cerulean Fall
I'm confused if the title is supposed to be "Fall" or "Falls." Aesthetically this is another beautiful map and similar to Sovereign (if I remember correctly NegativeZero said Sovereign inspired some of the texturing). I particularly love how the central path goes right past the two high grounds so close to the ramps. I can picture a lot of microing and positioning to happen around the center of the map, and can see some units choosing to detour up the ramp in order to catch their opponent off guard. The thirds are ambiguous, yet still have different features that make choosing to expand to one or the other a significant choice, with one on the high ground and the other on low ground. The low ground one is closer, spots drops into the main from a frontal assault, and is forward towards your opponent. The high ground one is a little further away, but also further away from your opponent. To compensate, it's relatively more open with the ramp being pushed away from the base, and there is a roundabout backdoor path for harassment, but also for later expanding. Overall this map is very good and definitely one of my favorites.
Artana
This map is aesthetically nice, but I'm not sold on its balance. I think this should have been considered a macro map and I am surprised to see it in the standard category. The aesthetic style, while old and overused, is still great and I think it's a good time for a resurgence of aesthetics like those seen on maps with lots of green (Tal'darim Altar comes to mind, and I guess Overgrowth to a lesser extent). I think that the layout here is poor and needs improvement. The pocket third is set up as the easier third, and this is a mistake in my opinion. It's the same issue here as with Fracture, but even worse. I do not like the watchtower locations on this map because of how useful they are in spotting drops moving across the map. Typically drops move in a somewhat roundabout path towards the opposing base, with the extremes being through the center or around the edge of the map. Usually players will opt for something between going around the edge of the map since it takes too long, and going through the center since it is too dangerous and more likely to be spotted. On Artana, this conventional wisdom regarding drops is turned on its head, and I don't like it.
Lost and Found
The system works! Interesting map name, but I like it. I feel like mapmakers have not fully explored the naming possibilities that no one has thought of yet. This TLMC is really starting to scratch the surface with this map and Backpfeifengesicht. Aesthetics are unique, which is getting more and more difficult as mapmakers are getting more and more artistic and creative, but there may be some issues with the lighting. It seems to me like the contrast is off a bit or something. This is another one of my favorites. It has plenty of attack paths, both open areas and choked areas, great use of destructible rocks and excellent use of space.
Digital Frontier
I think having a map in a map pool with a direct, strong natural-to-natural path is a good feature when it's not overused (map pools must use maps with different features and not maps with all the same features, otherwise there is no point in having a pool of maps at all). When I first saw this map, I wanted to compare it to an old map Odyssey by lefix (not Avex's Odyssey) for its similarity in design. Obviously, much has changed about the game since that map was published. I believe that the natural to natural direct path is balanced and not too favored for Terran because the forward third is not located on this same path. If it were, this map would be too Terran favored in my opinion. The thirds here are very ambiguous, almost to the point where it is difficult to tell which would be a better choice for which strategy. The expansion pattern is static after that, with both players expanding horizontally. Aesthetically this map is very easy on the eyes like 16-Bit and has pretty colors. I love the Tron theme.
Arashi
I mistakenly thought that the Reaper path by the natural was a backdoor into the natural and freaked out, but that isn't the case. This is a great example of how to design and make a balanced rush map. It has the short rush distance, but it is also choked up and filled with line-of-sight-blockers as a trade-off. The third is fixed, which is a good feature for an aggressive map in my opinion because it makes balancing the thirds and managing space on a smaller map easier. My favorite feature about this map are the locations of the watchtowers. By putting then into those crevices, it artificially restricts the movement not only on the low ground, but also on the high ground. I think that some of the doodads are distracting though, specifically the cannons that blast plasma into the air. I'd argue that these should be removed or replaced with some other doodad.
Cybros Relay Station
Aesthetically, this map needs improvement. The texturing and overall decoration is kinda mediocre, and even subpar compared to some of the other finalists. I like the use of the high ground around the map and the lack of expansions near the center of the map. As someone who belives that air units have recently been overpowered, it's nice to see a map that limits the features that air units can abuse. I think for a rush map the thirds here are too far away, and what's up with that obstruction by the pocket third? It seems like the attacker benefits more from the space restriction than the defender.
Dreamcatcher
I love the layout here! It can be difficult to design a conversely symmetrical map due to the struggle of balancing one side of the map vs the other, but Dreamcatcher succeeds at this. Something that helps it do this are the thirds. The option of which third to take is not right away a question of aggression or defense like on other maps. While the thirds towards the top right side of the map are the forward thirds, they are not really any closer to your opponent's main or natural than the alternative third. This changes however if both players were to expand towards the top right because the distance between the forward thirds and the distance between a forward third and the opposite defensive third are not equal. Overall solid layout. Aesthetically I was turned off by the pattern-style texturing seen in the overview, but this is more of a personal preference.
System Shock
The air wall and watchtowers is an interesting feature. I do not really know how this feature will be used in games. Most scrubs won't read the map description and therefore won't know about the air wall (like me lol). In fact, if I remember correctly, the first tournament game on this map saw both and Oracle fly into the wall and a full Medivac by the Terran player.
Backpfeifengesicht
Backpfeifengesicht aka Punchable Face aka Backrandomletters aka Backidontspeakgerman aka Ted Cruz is something I really want to like, but I know deep down that this gold base feature will not fly. It's just not balanced. Zerg has a more difficult time punishing a fast expanding player since they do not have immediate access to ranged units, while Terran can just build a Sensor Tower which covers a seriously large amount of space around that base on a map of this size. I think the map can be saved if the gold base is blocked by rocks, or maybe even something less inhibitive like a neutral depot or maybe a bunch of critters wandering around. In ZvP or ZvT, I don't think Zerg will ever take that base as the natural. I really want to like this map though, because it looks awesome and creative, but I'm worried.
Travincal
Based on what I saw on Wardi's stream there may be some performance issues. The line-of-sight blockers for both air and ground is an interesting feature and I wonder what kind of effect it will have on engagements around the map. I think that the risk vs. reward of the central pathway is a little insignificant due to how close the high ground ramp pathway around them is. What I am trying to say is that the difference between going through the low ground and going around on the high ground is very small, which makes me think players will opt for the high ground more often then not. I think maybe extending the two high ground platforms into the center so that there is no longer a low ground path and instead there are two high ground paths would be more interesting.
|
United States33383 Posts
congrats everyone
somewhere between making progamers irritated and furious, lies the path to making StarCraft II more interesting and fun 
|
On February 18 2018 11:12 Waxangel wrote:congrats everyone somewhere between making progamers irritated and furious, lies the path to making StarCraft II more interesting and fun
Agreed. Without rage and rants lies a community without passion. This is not what this is
|
Parasite is an interesting map to play on, that game of Snute vs INnoVation though was very interesting I imagine in TvT though regardless of the third base you choose the other one is a spot you can easily be punished by
|
What I am trying to say is that the difference between going through the low ground and going around on the high ground is very small, which makes me think players will opt for the high ground more often then not.
This little pathway is really only there for scouting early on and serves like a catalyst-center. It's narrowness *should* be forcing players up to the highground to engage with the main features of the map. Sounds like this is successful, so far.
|
Most of the standard maps look like they belong in the macro category. They're all so big.
|
There were two Zerg judges, one Protoss judge, and no Terran judges. Reasonably sized maps had no chance.
|
it would be a huge pain in the ass, but i guess the finalists do have the option to shrink their maps during the revision process lol
|
I'm quite disappointed with some of the finalists of this TLMC. 2 of the 3 maps of the New category seem unplayable to me. Also, how did Dreamcatcher get into the finalists?
|
On February 18 2018 23:54 Zygno wrote:
Also, how did Dreamcatcher get into the finalists?
Would you like to explain what is wrong with the map?
|
On February 18 2018 15:18 Avexyli wrote:Show nested quote +What I am trying to say is that the difference between going through the low ground and going around on the high ground is very small, which makes me think players will opt for the high ground more often then not. This little pathway is really only there for scouting early on and serves like a catalyst-center. It's narrowness *should* be forcing players up to the highground to engage with the main features of the map. Sounds like this is successful, so far.
I agree that it should be forcing players on the high ground, but the force on Travincal is too strong in my opinion, and it's not too strong on Catalyst. There is a small difference between the center of Catalyst and of Travincal that I'm gonna point out. You can see that on Catalyst, the commitment between choosing paths is higher: on Travincal, you have three ramps on each of the high grounds that exist near the center, while on Catalyst there are only two. Moving around and choosing between faster-but-more-dangerous and longer-but-safer means nothing if you're actually choosing between tiny-bit-faster-and-dangerous and tiny-bit-longer-and-safe; the payoffs from choosing the high ground relative to the low ground are too high. Catalyst differentiates the paths more so than Travincal does, in my opinion.
EDIT: My bad, I was looking at Catalyst and not Neo Catalyst. Neo Catalyst WITHOUT the rocks at the center ramps has basically the same issue as Travincal, but in my opinion, the rocks blocking the center ramps really change the map. I think using rocks to block one of the ramps on Travincal may fix the issue, but at the same time, I think that solution may cause more problems than it fixes because the use of rocks on Travincal is already unique and adding more rocks may mess everything up. I really love the use of the destructible and collapsible rocks outside the thirds on Travincal because it's something that I haven't really seen before.
|
On February 18 2018 21:15 Durnuu wrote:
Most of the standard maps look like they belong in the macro category. They're all so big.
Tbh this category has hugely improved size wise compared to previous TLMCs. Last TLMC the 'standard' maps were Catalyst which is legitimately standard and the absolutely enormous Eastwatch, Grime and Acid Plant. This TLMC we have Fracture and Blueshift which are standard (with Fracture even being on the small side for standard), Artana and Cerulean Fall(s?) which are too big for standard, and Digital Frontier and Lost and Found which are borderline.
Though all these terms are lines in the sand. Makes me wonder how they can try to encourage more Fracture sized maps and get rid of Rush as a category (which has been a failure every TLMC), since the borders between categories are confused enough as is.
Maybe they should just have Small, Medium and Large with Small going from true rush maps to slightly bigger than Fracture, Medium going from there to slightly smaller than the current standard category allows, and Large going from there on. The only way to truly get consistent categories would be to have the judges re-categorize every single map that made it past the initial cut, but that would be a lot of work.
|
For fun I decided to feed data about a bunch of LotV ladder maps into a simple machine learning classifier, to see if it could accurately classify the TLMC10 maps as 'rush', 'standard' or 'macro'.
+ Show Spoiler +Specifically I fed in the "Area", the "Short Side Length", the "Long Side Length", "Main to main distance by air", "Base count", "Main to main distance by ground", "Two base to two base distance by ground", "Three base to three base distance by ground". When there are multiple possible thirds I chose the one farther away, and to measure the "two base to two base" and "three base to three base" I chose the closest point along the path ground units would travel between the main/nat/third. For example for the "Three base to three base distance" for Catalyst I measured the distance between the two following points: + Show Spoiler +. For the training data I used the following maps and classifications: Abiogenesis: Rush Acid Plant: Macro Backwater: Macro Blackpink: Macro Catalyst: Standard Eastwatch: Macro Neon Violet Square: Macro Battle on the Boardwalk: Rush Ascension to Aiur: Macro Odyssey: Macro Abyssal Reef: Standard Acolyte: Macro Interloper: Rush Mech Depot: Macro Sequencer: Macro Blood Boil: Macro Defender’s Landing: Rush Proxima Station: Macro Bel’Shir Vestige: Standard Paladino Terminal: Rush Newkirk Precinct: Standard Daybreak: Standard Habitation Station: Standard Overgrowth: Standard Vaani Research Station: Macro Apotheosis: Macro Frozen Temple: Standard Galactic Process: Macro King Sejong Station: Standard New Gettysburg: Macro
It gave me the following results:
Treachery: Macro
16-bit: Macro
Kherrisan Rift: Macro
Para Site: Macro
Blueshift: Standard
Fracture: Rush
Cerulean Falls: Standard
Artana: Macro
Lost and Found: Standard
Digital Frontier: Standard
Arashi: Rush
Cybros Relay Station: Rush
Dreamcatcher: Rush
System Shock: Rush
Backpfeifengesicht: Standard
Travincal: Standard
Which doesn't seem too bad size-wise, though there's still a few problems. For example it does classify Frozen Temple as a Rush Map which seems a bit off.
Any suggestions about map features I should have included, or the categories or values I chose? (adding more size categories than just "rush", "standard", "macro" would be interesting, but I didn't feel confident in my ability to accurately differentiate between "medium" maps and "medium-large" maps).
|
AVEX I can't help noticing that Arashi looks like a certain Vanguard map...
|
On February 19 2018 10:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Which doesn't seem too bad size-wise, though there's still a few problems. For example it does classify Frozen Temple as a Rush Map which seems a bit off.
Was the map where every PvZ was cyber block into immortal all-in (or queen ravager all-in if P didn't all-in) and every TvZ 3rax reaper vs ravager all-in not a rush map?
|
On February 20 2018 16:39 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 10:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Which doesn't seem too bad size-wise, though there's still a few problems. For example it does classify Frozen Temple as a Rush Map which seems a bit off.
Was the map where every PvZ was cyber block into immortal all-in (or queen ravager all-in if P didn't all-in) and every TvZ 3rax reaper vs ravager all-in not a rush map?
It wasn't quite that bad. PvZs sometimes went long on Frozen Temple. Though maybe this machine learning classifier is just smarter than I am by calling it 'Rush'.
|
Alright here is my ranking of the maps with opinions after casting them all week, obviously this is all just my own opinion / slightly influenced by what some of the pros have said.
16 - System Shock
The map just doesn't really make sense - the watch towers give you very minimal information vs Terran/Protoss (I suppose you can watch for when the Natural is taken? Otherwise you just build everything outside of watch tower view.) For Zerg however if you spawn top side your Larva can be seen from the watchtower which is so insanely broken because people can see what is being built. No balance here and it naturally lead to very quick games.
15 - Backpfeifengesicht
I'm always down for the cool ideas of giving players a choice of bases and their being a high risk vs high reward feature of a Natural gold, but I think the games really just showed us that holding a mineral line which is so open and easily attacked from the other side just doesn't work. I enjoy the idea of the map and if I was judging this was definitely a great idea, but it just doesn't work well in practice sadly.
14 - Kherrisan Rift
This map saw its best showing in the finals with a long game of INnoVation vs soO, but I think this is more because INno chose to just sit, wall off and do nothing. Obviously it is a macro map and the idea is to create a map which allows for long games and makes it harder to attack on, but compared to the other macro maps this map really felt like it was just way too difficult to attack in mid-late, which is why a lot of players looked to end games early instead of letting it go on. Way too choke heavy, force field/zone control friendly.
13 - Travincal
I don't think this map really made much of an impression on me. The "new" feature of the LOS blockers was tough to see in so few games and so it just felt like an ordinary map with a super defensive four bases. Maybe it didn't get the games it deserved, but just felt uninteresting when we saw it.
12 - Fracture
I wanted to enjoy Fracture more, but I was pretty neutral about this map. I'm putting it low down because I feel for a "standard" map there were just better options (I would probably prefer to play this map more than others I rate higher honestly, but that's not how I'm doing my ranking :D). Three bases on high ground and easy to defend feels standard, but it's so quick to push across and I really felt this limited the games we saw. Also it feels difficult to find an open space to attack, with the choked center / rocks which allow you to play the choke points all the way until you reach your opponents base.
11 - Lost and Found
The faded colour scheme / lighting on this map made it very difficult to watch games. Whatever setting it was that's been changed affected health bars, writing and all sorts. Multiple players complained that their units just looked different because of it and sometimes it was hard to see units too. I think the lighting has hurt this map more than anything else. It showed us a fun ZvZ between Bly and Solar, which showcased the heavy amount of ramps, but I felt there was also good amounts of space to fight on too.
10 - Cybros Relay Station
A rush map that didn't really get me too excited, but still provided some fun games. I feel MMA vs Nerchio really showcased the weakness of this map later game, which is going past a fourth can be very difficult for a non-Zerg with so many pathways to attack on and the size of the map allowing rotations of fast moving runbys to take advantage. I feel the top right/bottom left of the map rarely got used and I'm still unsure about that big rock on the third. Wouldn't say I disliked the map, but the other rush maps definitely gave me more of a buzz.
9 - Dreamcatcher
This map feels huge for a rush map! I originally rated this one higher in my list, because we didn't see bad games on it, but the more I think about it the less I like it. Drops feel maybe a bit too good and it can be very easy to hold a lot of bases. I think the map lacks some structure in general, because when we never really saw a lot of interesting occurrences in the center of the map and there were limited reasons to go anywhere other than through the shorter rush distance.
8 - Cerulean Falls
The size of this map really surprised me when I got in-game! I don't have a lot to say about this one sadly, I feel a lot of the games on this map were alright but nothing spectacular. We saw very standard three bases, which it does well, but it's hard to know how the rest of it's architecture really plays out. I think the combination of choking the open areas while also having ramps leading into them can be interesting, but not sure how well it plays out.
7 - Treachery
A more well-executed macro map which I feel I only rate so low because it kind of does its job so well : it creates macro games with not a lot happening. Easy map to split and take multiple bases on early, while creating scrappier games in the later stages because beyond 6 bases you really have to extend out to expand further. I'm personally not a fan of the 'macro category' in general, I feel like having one macro map in a map pool is fine, but they aren't the maps that get me the most excited. I can't fault this map though, it definitely does its job.
6 - 16 Bit
This map does a pocket expansion well. I love it and I love the simple and clean decoration too (something which for me who looks at the maps a lot while casting is a big part of how much I like some of them ;D but not the only thing!!) I really wonder if there is a way to make this map just a tiny bit smaller, because I feel its only flaw is that it is slightly too large. An in-base expansion is always a fun way to have one map be different to others on the map pool and I was pleasantly surprised that more of the macro maps didn't use it as a way to simply be "macro". It never felt like the bases were being taken for free (something I felt on Treachery/Kherrisan for example), but it still had the macro feel. Multiple pathways, different expansion patterns, I was genuinely surprised the players vetoed this map so often.
5 - Arashi
So this map has be super torn. We didn't get to see any super long games on this map (which I suppose is what is meant to happen on a rush map?), but I have to say I think the idea of it was really nice. It sticks to it's nature of being a rush map in so many ways. While it gives you a high ground third, there is a lot of space on the high ground so it is still difficult to hold. Later there are also rocks that can go down to open it up even further. It really is a rush map from the start of the game until the later stages, which is why I rated it so highly, I think it does its job in a unique way. I like how the rocks going down on the third actually create the fourth base too. Really fun map in its concept, which is why it is this high in my rankings.
4 - Artana
It's getting difficult to split up my rankings for the last few maps because I like #2-#4 about the same amount I feel for different reasons. Artana gave us some fantastic games, it has a unique third being on the low ground but accessible from multiple directions and can even lead into a choice of expansions. The map is maybe a bit too choked on the right and left hand side (feels very difficult to attack into the fourth above/below the main?) but has some good open spaces as well. This map pleasantly surprised me in how it played out, which is why it is #4 in my ranking. It's standard in a fun way!
3 - Digital Frontier
Okay I really didn't know whether to put this map at #3 or #2, but I put it at #3 because I think it is slightly less interesting at what it does than #2. It has some fun sets of rocks which change the map as it goes on as well as a third base that you can hold but not without some defensive units. This is definitely the definition of "clean, simple and fun to look at" when it comes to maps for me and I just enjoyed watching all the games on this one. Fun pathway options throughout the map as well mixes it up and allows each game to feel different with how players choose to move their units.
2 - Para Site
Ahh! I didn't think I liked this map so much but the more I thought about it I really think it's a macro map I can get behind. It doesn't feel stupidly large, it gives you a fairly easy three and four base set-up (with a choice of fourth bases depending on how you want to expand). A fifth base comes down in a more forward location, allowing for engagements to be created towards your opponents base. And while these bases are easy to defend, the choices on how you can move your army stop it from feeling too split-map friendly. soO vs INno in the finals showed what this map can allow for, fun back and forth games with a lot of engagements, positions you can fall back to defensively but also locations you can push more easily. This map just felt right.
1 - Blueshift
If this map isn't in the next ladder map pool I'm going to be heartbroken. First up it's straight up beautiful to look at (some players said it was a bit dark, but I've never had this issue of maps being too dark so it may be dependent on settings.) Secondly I love the way that you can almost tell how this map was made, it's taken aspects of maps that have worked so well in the past and adapted them to make it different enough, but still great to play. For me it reminds me the most of Catalyst, with a similar base structure but different high/low ground options. Obviously the pathway through the center has a lot to do with that, which is made interesting as the game continues due to the rocks which give the map more complexity as the game goes on.
What I love about this map is it takes away some of the split map presence Catalyst has, by not having the forward base, which creates a more spread defense for armies later in the game. I really feel it creates fun macro games that promote moving around the map rather than sitting back doing nothing. Everything on this map works for me, which is why it's my number 1.
Was awesome to get to run this tournament again! Apologies for the Group D cast where I was on a bit of a life tilt, as well as for the issues we had with some of the players (not much I can do here apart from not invite them back in the future.) If any of the map makers have any feedback on how the tournament phase went I would love to hear it so that I can improve on it if I get the chance to run the tournament phase again in the future.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
Very strong TLMC this season. I think we're going to have some excellent maps for our tournaments.
|
On February 20 2018 16:01 Ectar wrote:
AVEX I can't help noticing that Arashi looks like a certain Vanguard map...
Not sure what this is supposed to be suggesting, but this is based off the purifier campaign mission where you rescue Fenix.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/MmAx3Pxl.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AfG96TPl.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/V9EqC4e.jpg)
