I made a new Aztec Map because i didnt like the old one all that much. Also the Textures are now ''equal'' to the original. Only on EU.

Original:
+ Show Spoiler +

General:
+ Show Spoiler +

Texture: Costum
Playable: 151x151
Expands: 15
Xel'Naga: 1

Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +

HQ: http://i.imgur.com/T4BDa.jpg

AnalyzerOverview:
+ Show Spoiler +

Analyzer:
+ Show Spoiler +

Pictures:
+ Show Spoiler +

Old:
+ Show Spoiler +

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189869

TibblesEvilCat

United Kingdom766 Posts

December 29 2011 23:00 GMT

The Original had a low ground main :/

Sea_Food

Finland1612 Posts

December 29 2011 23:04 GMT

So much air space inside and outside of landmass should make late game mutas and blords very powerful. Also the mid is very open, but necessary to control if you want to gain a 5th base. Those combined could make lategame (past 25min) zerg very powerful.

diLLa

Netherlands247 Posts

December 29 2011 23:14 GMT

On December 30 2011 08:00 TibblesEvilCat wrote:
The Original had a low ground main :/

you know what a low ground main in starcraft 2 means right?

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

December 29 2011 23:14 GMT

On December 30 2011 08:00 TibblesEvilCat wrote:
The Original had a low ground main :/

And guess why we can't do that in SC2...

... exactly: Warp-In. Protoss fucking up SC2 maps since beta.

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

December 29 2011 23:17 GMT

I really like the layout...honestly. Also loving the BW feel with the aesthetics. However, I fear this map shares the same issues all three player maps do. After looking at the overview for a while I began to see some mineral lines look easier to cannon rush or bunker rush than others, as well as differences in key choke points such as at the natural. Not to mention the air space imbalance. Seeing that I don't have an EU account I can't be sure about the mineral lines and the choke points, but if issues are present they can certainly be worked out by lots of play testing.

EDIT: When I mean worked out, I don't think they can be fully worked out just due to the nature of three player maps, but I'm sure you can get very damn close to balance at all three spawn points

The issues I have with the layout are minor.
-I'm not really digging the cliffs behind the natural and 3rd. Even if they aren't pathable, I don't like the fact that mutas have free reign from those cliffs. I certainly don't mind small cliffs for overlords and what not, but those are too large for comfort.

-Without the analyzer summary that shows watch tower range, all I can assume at this point is that the tower in the middle is super strong. There are not only lots of overlord spots, but a tower that sees everything. I could be wrong and there could be a way around the tower, but I'm not sure at this point...

Nevertheless, it is certainly a map I would be excited to test out if I were able to! :D

Mereel

Germany895 Posts

December 29 2011 23:21 GMT

there is a analyzer summary picture^^
i think the middle is the only place to place a tower....otherwise i would need 3 and thats way too much

Timetwister22

United States538 Posts

December 29 2011 23:26 GMT

oops....i missed it, disregard that then :/ Though, this does go to show that it is way too strong. It sees the entire middle. Maybe make those cliffs in the middle a little bigger so overlords/ observers could chill there and just remove the tower. Towers aren't exactly necessary, plus the original didn't have a watchtower :p

Mereel

Germany895 Posts

December 29 2011 23:35 GMT

yeah...i think you are right. i will post an update when im done with doodads

SkimGuy

Canada709 Posts

December 30 2011 00:52 GMT

#10

On December 30 2011 08:14 Ragoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

And guess why we can't do that in SC2...

... exactly: Warp-In. Protoss fucking up SC2 maps since beta.

Maps with an inverted high ground promoted a more aggressive play-style in BW due to not wanting to get contained in your main base.

The_Templar

your Country52798 Posts

December 30 2011 00:57 GMT

#11

On December 30 2011 08:14 Ragoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

And guess why we can't do that in SC2...

... exactly: Warp-In. Protoss fucking up SC2 maps since beta.

Wouldn't making the only warpable location at the natural help fix that?

LunaSaint

United Kingdom620 Posts

December 30 2011 02:22 GMT

#12

Wow, no-one complaining about siege tanks behind the natural. Glad that people are starting to read threads more.

For people worried about air units like mutas behind them, as soon as they attack, they're revealed. Probably the scariest thing that can be hidden there are warp prisms, but then Terran and Zerg have overlords and sensor towers while protoss need to tech to Robo or Stargate to really cover from drops.
Otherwise, top right seems far better defended against air and especially broodlords, since they can't wiggle behind the high third. That may be fixable with air pathing blockers though.

That air space is very powerful, I'd like to see how it works out.

Plexa

Aotearoa39261 Posts

December 30 2011 06:42 GMT

#13

I feel that this map would play out really well.

Chargelot

2275 Posts

December 30 2011 10:54 GMT

#14

Wow, no one complaining that it's not perfectly symmetrical. This is a really nice looking map. The mild asymmetry while maintaining an extraordinarily similar base layout (lets call the difference +/- 10% Distance to next base/area for current base, I shall dub this equation the asymmetry quotient) for every base is very.... Blizzard like. But in a good sense.

A little more airspace at the top/left may be useful, as the right and bottom sides have enough space that a unit could either travel safely, or at least get a chance to breathe between attacks.

But remember, this is what people call Blizzard maps out for. So either call this beautiful map out, or stop calling Blizzard out on mild asymmetry.