|
[M] (2) Kassad
online on EU - search for Samro225am or Kassad
(2) Kassad
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PbhPj.jpg)
Author: Samro225am
Description:
Size: 128x120
Expansions: 12 ( ten regular and two high yield )
Spawnpoints: 2
additional features: Inbase-Natural with 6Min and destructable rocks at second geyser
Brake DRs at Inbase-nat to gain access to geyser and cliff that is also walkable from mapcentre Brake DRs in centre to gain two small extra pathes
Custom tileset based on many sets (Folsom, Ulaan, Meinhoff, Redstone, Mar Sara, Valhalla)
Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +Main: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qmwFe.jpg) In-Base-Nat: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/v1nLk.jpg) Third: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/SxTyx.jpg) Fourth: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/eB1kF.jpg) Fifth: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/a38I7.jpg) High Yield: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6llDF.jpg) "Path" to cliff atIn-Base-Nat: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8xX6x.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/UbDJb.jpg) "Path" to cliff at fourth:
Thanks to NullCurrent and dezi for their comments on earlier versions and FlopTurnReaver for his comment on the inbase-nat!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Is there no rock at the right third? ^^
|
You should definitly get rid of the terrain of the main behind the natural. The main would still be big enough and it would create a bit of overlord chill space.
|
On March 03 2011 02:06 dezi wrote:
Is there no rock at the right third? ^^
... somebody has taken them down already, i guess
On March 03 2011 02:10 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
You should definitly get rid of the terrain of the main behind the natural. The main would still be big enough and it would create a bit of overlord chill space.
the long main-cliff above the in-main natural actually was rather thought as a dropable area behind LoSBs than as a space for building up your base. like you wrote, it already is quite spaceous.
what would you think about flipping the cliff over, sotaht it points in the same direction but faces the centre (it is between in-main nat and low-ground instead of in-main nat and edge of map)?
|
Oh yes im liking the overall layout of the map. The middle especially, good use of the rocks.
The mains are abit weirdly shaped tho as someone pointed out, think you need to take a look at that.
|
United States10396 Posts
good map. nice rock usage as the last post. really makes this an interesting map!
however, unusual shaping may be a problem... id like it to be like an empty space area.
|
turned in-main natural and its cliff around.
changed cliff at fourth and added ramp.
|
Looks pretty spiffy. Looks like everyone gets a free expansion! Who doesn't love free stuff? Nice size and layout. Looks like a strong map.
|
updated OP
Map is online and submitted to MOTM#3
|
This reminds me of a very compact BW map. It has so many places to anticipate your opponent, which will be early and often because of the size, which I really like. Was it intentional to have the small back expansion be so cramped, or just a result of the arrangement?
|
I'm not a mapmaker, but I'm lurking this forum for some time now.
I like this approach, especially because it is not just another generic "standardmap" with the standard layout that a lot of people seem to like. Therefore I like the small, cramped natural and the long cliff behind the main. Might create some non-standard play.
Good luck in MOTM#3.
|
Hi Guys and greatings from Myanmar!
Thx for your interest and comments!
Let Me explain the concept in really short:
I wanted to achieve a very compact layout and various expansion setups and attacking routes at the same time. The problem here is, that you cannot use to many ramps without sacrificing much needed space. Another important idea was that I wanted the map to suite different playing styles and macro as well as micro games. My main idea though was to design a structure that gives a decent advantage to an aggressive player that takes control of the low ground centre and one xwt, denying the other to take it probably and by that having the option to take more expansions than the other (midground plus lowground centre). By that the defensive player who stays on saver midground is punished. On the other hand, when trying to take control of the centre, you can be punished with drops and cliffwalking units. I am unsure if the Mao is perfectly balanced, but I think it is really interesting, mainly because if macro and micro options and entreating details in the layout - just look at the in-base nat with the front and back cliff but without rocks to brake.
From march 20th on I will try to get it on NA servers!
|
Very nice map man, I'd love to see some analyzer pictures showing the distances.
If you'd like it published on NA I'd be glad to help
|
Germany340 Posts
I played it today and looks like a pretty cool map with a lot of interesting features. I wonder how it will turn out once i get to play it more often.
|
oneil: i am on vacation in myanmar these days, so no upload before 20th, sorry.
spinnaker: it would be great you could get some more plays with your friends on EU and upload some replays. it might be interesting for other players and mappers, since the map gives qquite some options to choose from, i think!
|
just wanted to let you know that I am back from vacation and now really busy with real life work.
the map did rather well in motm#3 but was not nominated due to a really low rating on originality.
26.0 Kassad 7.5 4.2 7.7 6.7
overall - and looking at it with a month off from mapmaking and sc2 I still think it is a good direction.
there is an in base natural, a rather open natural expansion and a macro oriented expansion pattern with a not so long rush-distance, two open fields in the centre and DRs to open more pathes.
I will try to get it online on NA for the weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
