Whats the size of the map?? 128x128? Overall I like it, it seems very open though, I think a few cliffs here and there would improve it a bit. Also are you using any of the new shrubbery stuff?

WazZap

Netherlands73 Posts

April 25 2010 19:46 GMT

i think those rich expos are a bit to easy to defend. The starting pos and natural are quite nice (bit LT like with the ramp @ natural) The 2nd expansion is right out in the open and then the rich only has a ramp leading up to it.

Otherwise nice map, i like when controlling a position (the middle) is important.

flamewheel

FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts

April 25 2010 19:46 GMT

I like it, but perhaps put resources at 3 and 9 o'clock? It feels a bit stymied in terms of expansions, and it would be very hard to defend a third with this setup.

GoodCat1

Israel266 Posts

April 25 2010 19:46 GMT

kinda thin :o

Snausages

United States529 Posts

April 25 2010 19:49 GMT

Good stuff, but I think mains should be bigger. Also, shouldn't mains have 8 mineral patches?

I think adding 3 and 9 o clock expos would solve the issue with the thirds.

Slunk

Germany768 Posts

April 25 2010 19:49 GMT

I don't like 3rd and 4th bases to be this far away.

a176

Canada6688 Posts

April 25 2010 19:49 GMT

Switch the high yield and the 3rd's and it'll be a pretty sweet map!

GoDannY

Germany442 Posts

April 25 2010 19:50 GMT

#10

I am wondering if the mineral placement is fine, looks like the side patches require a longer way don't they?

iPlod

United States46 Posts

April 25 2010 19:52 GMT

#11

It looks almost like it would be easier to make this a four player map.

Also, it might be a good idea to put an expansion where the high ground by the Xel'Naga towers (On the outsides of the map)

But I would defiantly play this map one way or another.

Shouryu

Norway132 Posts

April 25 2010 19:53 GMT

#12

I think it would be better if you swapped the gold expo with the nearest blue mineral expo ('cause it looks more wide and open --> harder to defend).

3FFA

United States3931 Posts

April 25 2010 19:54 GMT

#13

Change the high yield to an expansion at 3/9 (with either no ramp or 2 ramps) because having only 1 ramp makes it so that the only way to take the high yields out is by air since I always picture high yields with mass cannons in them and mass cannons would make the high yields practically invulnerable. I'll edit this post as I see more imbalances.

edit1: O and, the mains and naturals are perfectly fine except maybe the ramp being LT-like instead of like python but other than that I see nothing wrong(except the cliffs above nats) with the mains and naturals. I'll look at the mineral placement for next edit.

edit2: gonna wait for new map pic until I make my next edit(place the new map above old one so its easier for us to see changes please).

jcarlsoniv

United States27922 Posts

April 25 2010 19:57 GMT

#14

The only thing I'm not fond of is the cliffs behind the naturals. Lends itself to a lot of harassment.

Skee

Canada702 Posts

April 25 2010 19:57 GMT

#15

On April 26 2010 04:46 flamewheel91 wrote:
I like it, but perhaps put resources at 3 and 9 o'clock? It feels a bit stymied in terms of expansions, and it would be very hard to defend a third with this setup.

I have thought of this, I am not sure though.

On April 26 2010 04:53 Shouryu wrote:
I think it would be better if you swapped the gold expo with the nearest blue mineral expo ('cause it looks more wide and open --> harder to defend).

Yea, I just thought of that. Probably will right now.

On April 26 2010 04:50 GoDannY wrote:
I am wondering if the mineral placement is fine, looks like the side patches require a longer way don't they?

I placed a nexus and put the mineral patches and gas around that, so it is probably fine.

On April 26 2010 04:45 btlyger wrote:
Whats the size of the map?? 128x128? Overall I like it, it seems very open though, I think a few cliffs here and there would improve it a bit. Also are you using any of the new shrubbery stuff?

The map dimensions:
Playable: 139x137
Overall: 152x160

EDIT: Yea, I have trees and foliage around the edges. In between the watch towers and middle area is all trees.

I can think of another open map that was really popular for 1v1. Python =)

Skee

Canada702 Posts

April 25 2010 20:13 GMT

#16

Updated image posted.

3FFA

United States3931 Posts

April 25 2010 21:10 GMT

#17

OMG! Huge improvement! I guess you really want the cliffs above the nat so I can deal with that. I like this map a lot and really wish it was in SCI(I'm not kidding lol) because its sooo good. Maybe make 2 versions, 1 with cliffs above expansions(the current version) and 1 without. I can't see any way to improve this besides that and I would have to actually play it to see how the ledges work. I'm just afraid of thor/vac(thor in medivacs vs zerg to drop and harass) will be even stronger than on other maps. Maybe make it so that there are rocks that block a ramp up to the ledge? Thats how blizzard balanced ledges in SCII(the one SCII 2vs2 map with the ledge). I think it was one of the few things blizzard decided to change about how they make maps.

In summary of my rant of suggestions:
1. put a rock blocked ramp up to each ledge(coming from nat of course, probably behind minerals)
2. you can stick with this if you want as its perfect from my point of view
3. how long did it take you to make this map perfect? lol.
4. GJ man! If I were you I would go celebrate by getting some pizza(or going to a restaurant)

Skee

Canada702 Posts

April 25 2010 21:17 GMT

#18

@3FFA, I added a second update with the natural ledge removed ONLY because the high yield was in range of siege tanks from that same cliff.

I took me from 1am-4am to make it last night. Then I touched it up for about an hour today. The rest has been taking feedback from the forum. =P

Eukarya

United States29 Posts

April 25 2010 21:18 GMT

#19

I feel like it could be more interesting if there were other paths than to go through the center. I just see it being to easy to expand a lot and defend if you hold on to the center. A bridge running on the top and on the bottom of the center might make it more mobile.

Then again, this could just be SCBW instincts fearing a siege tank line in the middle.

Snausages

United States529 Posts

April 25 2010 21:23 GMT

#20

The mains are still pretty small.