EPT[M] Anger Stronghold
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
First impression: 7.5/10 ;D (First impression as in I haven't played it or anything) EDIT: Holy shit, 10 for effort on the OP too dude O_O | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
GenesisX
Canada4267 Posts
| ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
I enjoy seeing the thirds (the ones closer to the top right side of the map) on high ground slightly overlooking the natural in such a way that you can use it for defense, but your enemy can use it for offense just as easily if you forget to position units there and get caught out of position. I am a little less satisfied with the bottom left side of the map. There seems to be little influence to go there at all. I know that is probably why you placed the high yield expansion there, but I am not absolutely sure whether or not that will make a significant difference. The high ground paths blocked by DRs on both ends look like a really bad idea to use. An army would have to go all the way to the back entrance, destroy the rocks there, then travel over the high ground path, destroy the other rocks, and then attack the base. To me, it seems like the army goes too much out of its way to attack an expansion. It would leave the player very vulnerable, as it would take so long for the army to retreat to defend their base. Therefore, I feel that those paths would be generally unused entirely. I think that you could push the high yield expansion closer towards the center of the map and literally chop off unneeded landscape near the bottom. The high ground areas could be redesigned so that instead of a straight line act more like a curved line or a line with an angle in it that points more so towards the center of the map than the bottom left corner. Good map, I love the aesthetics on it!  | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
I wanted to comment about expand to the bottom left area of the map versus expanding to the top right area, but I don't exactly know if players will find value in controlling that bottom corner or not in longer games. My initial answer would be no because of how open the area between mains is, but it all depends on how even games end up becoming on 4 bases. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
[quote]I am a little less satisfied with the bottom left side of the map. There seems to be little influence to go there at all. I know that is probably why you placed the high yield expansion there, but I am not absolutely sure whether or not that will make a significant difference. The high ground paths blocked by DRs on both ends look like a really bad idea to use. An army would have to go all the way to the back entrance, destroy the rocks there, then travel over the high ground path, destroy the other rocks, and then attack the base. To me, it seems like the army goes too much out of its way to attack an expansion. It would leave the player very vulnerable, as it would take so long for the army to retreat to defend their base. Therefore, I feel that those paths would be generally unused entirely. I think that you could push the high yield expansion closer towards the center of the map and literally chop off unneeded landscape near the bottom. The high ground areas could be redesigned so that instead of a straight line act more like a curved line or a line with an angle in it that points more so towards the center of the map than the bottom left corner.[/quote] Indeed. I understand this and I could see how a in a lot of games the bottom half of the map is used as a last resort (which still gives it a purpose). The thing is that sentries will have a field day on the bottom half of the map near the watch tower. I stand by the idea that Protoss will perform quite well down there. Also think of the destructible rock high ground path from bottom third to the gold as more of a lost temple ledge with rocks that you can break and only mattering once bases are taken down there  I put 7 gold mineral patches at the gold expansion to make it more juicy btw. I think to make the bottom half of the map mean more the first thing I would do would add an 8th gold mineral patch there. I understand that the way it stretches yourself away from the northern half of the map is a serious hindrance if you try do handle both sides in terms of trying to defend it, but maybe a big problem is that it's just a little to open; perhaps I could make a lot of dead space between that high ground destructible rock path and the watch tower to make it easier to defend? Maybe make that little piece of high ground that turns it's entrance into a fork bigger? Moving the high yield would really be a last resort TBH.I do not think that adding more stuff and making that part of the map more choked up would be a good idea. I see what you mean by trying to make it easier to defend, but I guess that can kind of be a punishment for expanding to both sides of the map and trying to defend both sides. I wasn't viewing the high ground areas as a harassment option but more of an alternate attack route, which was why I didn't see how it was really supposed to work. [quote]Thanks that means a lot coming from you, you are usually pretty damn critical (in a good way) [/quote]...I hope that doesn't make me a hypocrite, because I cannot make good maps with the editor, I've tried and given up a long time ago. Thanks for appreciating my criticism, but it creates more enemies than friends, so it's not one of my positive traits... EDIT: Quote fail... wtflol? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On December 12 2010 04:59 Barrin wrote: lol quote fail made me giggle I think it's because you have 3 [ quote ]s but only 2 [ / quote ]s and you start off with two [ quote ]s Well I'm too lazy to fix it. Hope you can understand it. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
