|
|
your Country52797 Posts
The mains are too big!
+ Show Spoiler +Ha, seriously though, I think the only problem is that the middle is too cramped. Oh, and welcome back ^^
|
Nice, but yes i agree the middle is too cramped. Especially in sc2 you got to allow more space so splash doesn't rape everything, and so that FFs don't rape everything neither.
I wonder if you should just make the 3 bridges in the middle 1 big area, because there's enough holes and cliffs around that area anyways and mech is already strong due to only needing like 3 sensor towers. And this way Zerg can actually engage better, and bio can't get FF'd and splashed to death.
But ofc this is just from looking at it, but these were the problems that someone from ICCUP map making team said that kept destination from being a decent sc2 map.
|
Reminds me of Crossfire - h8trs gonna h8, but its actually probably going to be fine in the end
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36919 Posts
On December 10 2011 08:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Nice, but yes i agree the middle is too cramped. Especially in sc2 you got to allow more space so splash doesn't rape everything, and so that FFs don't rape everything neither.
I wonder if you should just make the 3 bridges in the middle 1 big area, because there's enough holes and cliffs around that area anyways and mech is already strong due to only needing like 3 sensor towers. And this way Zerg can actually engage better, and bio can't get FF'd and splashed to death.
But ofc this is just from looking at it, but these were the problems that someone from ICCUP map making team said that kept destination from being a decent sc2 map.
But if u take away those 3 bridges, it's no longer the revered BW Destination :[
|
Awesome! Destination would provide a much more interesting split map than Shakuras, that's for sure.
I really want to see some good games on it, see how easy it actually is to cut off the three bridges.
|
in the games i played the bridges never played any role at all....im not the best player though^^
|
On December 10 2011 08:46 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Nice, but yes i agree the middle is too cramped. Especially in sc2 you got to allow more space so splash doesn't rape everything, and so that FFs don't rape everything neither.
I wonder if you should just make the 3 bridges in the middle 1 big area, because there's enough holes and cliffs around that area anyways and mech is already strong due to only needing like 3 sensor towers. And this way Zerg can actually engage better, and bio can't get FF'd and splashed to death.
But ofc this is just from looking at it, but these were the problems that someone from ICCUP map making team said that kept destination from being a decent sc2 map. But if u take away those 3 bridges, it's no longer the revered BW Destination :[
Hm just make em wider then I guess? idk =/
|
United States10021 Posts
get rid of those 2 holes in the ground in the middle of the 2 centers of each side. this allows for armies not to get funneled into space half the size. also, considering how this is SC2, make the 3 central ramps into 2 ramps instead. this is so the armies are able to fit, not like in BW where you didn't need that (I remember you could only fit one tank/goon at a time on that bridge)
Overall, good map. I like the addition of one gas in the back bases.
|
the main is far too small; no place to hide ma proxy rax
|
There is that reminder of crossfire that people have mentioned, but even though that map mas some issues, it also forces some awesome games as we have seen from cheese to games where all minerals are mines out.
I like the overall layout and think that it is definitely a map heading in an interesting direction.
|
On December 10 2011 10:38 FlaShFTW wrote: get rid of those 2 holes in the ground in the middle of the 2 centers of each side. this allows for armies not to get funneled into space half the size. also, considering how this is SC2, make the 3 central ramps into 2 ramps instead. this is so the armies are able to fit, not like in BW where you didn't need that (I remember you could only fit one tank/goon at a time on that bridge)
Overall, good map. I like the addition of one gas in the back bases.
I agree that the holes should be removed, they seem unnecessary. However, I think the bridges are fine, since the entire point is that they are 3 narrow chokepoints - it's a risk to move your army through and get caught in the middle, but the advantage is that the path is shorter. If you don't want to take that risk, there is the other, wider path around the side of the map...
|
Is that the fabled Panda Bear Guy in the center?
|
On December 10 2011 11:57 Aeres wrote: Is that the fabled Panda Bear Guy in the center?
omg is it???
|
What is up with all the remakes all of a sudden? Did the magical spring of creativity dry up?
Nah I'm kidding, this map brings back memories of me and my brother playing LAN when we first learned how to play SC. Good times!
Leave the three bridges the way they are. Might be the little kid inside me saying that, but I think it could work.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36919 Posts
It really hurts me that BW maps can't really be replicated for SC2 :[
The units and pathing is so different for SC2 that BW maps have to be altered so much sometimes ..... and then it's no longer THE BW map :[
|
The custom textures really make it feel like a BW war map though! I love it.
|
I... fucking... LOVE YOU!
Anyone want to test this on EU? master zerg Phase - 170
|
how many minerals are on the backdoor blockers? (already imagining a 1-1-1 with mules to open up a backdoor entrence )
|
On December 10 2011 13:09 Seeker wrote: It really hurts me that BW maps can't really be replicated for SC2 :[
The units and pathing is so different for SC2 that BW maps have to be altered so much sometimes ..... and then it's no longer THE BW map :[
Loki II seems excellent.
|
|
|
|