|
ESV TV, The home of the Korean Weekly!
Published on NA and EU.
ESV Brineclaw by GWen
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/phK42.jpg)
Angled view:
+ Show Spoiler +
Replays:
+ Show Spoiler +
Map Analyzer Pictures:
+ Show Spoiler +
Distances:
- Main to main: 47 seconds (in game)
- Nat to nat: 37 seconds (in game)
Xel'Naga towers:
- None
Size:
- 151x122 Playable
The first odd thing you may notice about the map is the third with a ramp that faces away from the natural. While at first this may make the third harder to hold it balances out quite nicely for two reasons. The third is fairly close to the natural and your opponent has to travel quite a far distance in order to attack your third. These factors combined with the fact that the natural ramp is 3 tiles while compared to the 2 of the third may make your natural more vulnerable than your third.
The cliffs that surround the centre base is unpathable. Many engagements that focus on taking out a third or a fourth base will be determined by careful positioning around these cliffs. Since there are no watch towers flanking, counter attacks and harassment are slightly stronger options on this map; especially when combined with the cliffs around the third and centre bases.
Textures used:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zeGOQ.png)
Eye Candy:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
For the decoration on the map I wanted to create a spooky forest. To distinguish it from the rest of the jungle maps I tried to stay away from dirt textures and chose a color scheme that is fairly cold. The minimal use of textures (only 5) and the use of textures from three completely different packs (and trees from Aiur) led to a fairly unique look for the map. The texturing isn't quite done yet so expect it to be updated over the next few days.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36905 Posts
1 word: B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L
I so freaking want to play on this
|
On January 07 2012 19:42 Seeker wrote:
1 word: B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L
ಠ_ಠ
I guess we reached the same point with 2p maps as with 4p maps, where everything looks the same 
|
On January 07 2012 21:23 FlopTurnReaver wrote:ಠ_ಠ I guess we reached the same point with 2p maps as with 4p maps, where everything looks the same
this. the map looks beautiful and all but Im kinda fed up with this concept of 2p maps. Tiny feature like third's ramp doesnt make it freshier than something like Dual Sight. gj in designing though
|
Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO....
|
It would be really cool if you would tell the size of the map -.-
|
Looks like people would split the map in half. Looks good, don't know about actual gameplay.
|
I dont like that the thirds ramp faces away from the natural. The opponent could easily plant his army there to cut off the third from the nat. (Im seeing myself do just this in a PvZ)
|
On January 07 2012 22:44 CaptainCrush wrote:
Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO....
I fail to see the resemblance
On January 08 2012 04:29 Gl!tch wrote:
I dont like that the thirds ramp faces away from the natural. The opponent could easily plant his army there to cut off the third from the nat. (Im seeing myself do just this in a PvZ)
I don't see how that's a problem. If an army gets to that point on any other map, then the expansion would be dead anyway so it doesn't really matter. Not to mention how open that leaves you to counters.
|
Considering the distance from the natural to the opponent's third, I don't actually think it's all that much harder to hold than a map like Shakuras, or something. I think it's fine, and kind of interesting. Despite being fairly central, they don't control the map that well, like maybe Xel Naga Caverns or Jungle Basin or something, but only the shortest attack path.
People say this map is a lot like other maps, but I think it has some subtle things about it that interest me. The ability to swing around behind when a Terran takes a planetary in the middle makes for some interesting positioning.
I think it might just be a little too small. I would love just a little bit of extra width added to the center line, which would make defending all the expos just a little easier and to increase the rush distance.
|
On January 07 2012 22:44 CaptainCrush wrote:
Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO....
I'm starting to think this specific comment should get a warning, sort of like people posting one-liner responses to strategy [H] threads.
I agree with flop that this map is overall uninspiring However, I think it's our responsibility as serious critiquers to see past the "everything looks the same" we've reached with many 2p and 4p maps. It's time to start really analyzing the minor details and how they are combined, because that is the level of the craft (mapping) and metagame (play) these days.
One thing I really like is that the center bases are actually stable, if dangerous. Much more than Shakuras or XNC, or Scrap Station 3rds ::shudder::, which of course isn't saying much but I think it's important to note because not many maps include stable central bases, they usually are there as terran or protoss bases exclusively, or desperation / victory stomp zerg bases.
I also like the concept of the long route to the 3rd which the 3rd ramp plays up, as neobowman addressed. Nevertheless, I think it might prove a little too hard for PvZ against mutas with lings easily threatening both the front and the 3rd while mutas put the stalkers out of position and then smash the walls / cannons / zealots guarding against the lings. This is exacerbated by the long attack distance with four huge runby / flanking opportunities and no towers, and the difficulty in effectively assaulting either the zerg natural or 3rd up a ramp with mass spines / lings.
That's my hunch and I would specifically test on that a bit if you can.
I'm curious if you tried towers and didn't like them? This is certainly a great map without them (preferred) but the following tower arrangement seems alright too, if a little too nice for tank play. (It would help PvZ imo.)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6dcrS.jpg)
|
On January 08 2012 08:16 EatThePath wrote:
I agree with flop that this map is overall uninspiring However, I think it's our responsibility as serious critiquers to see past the "everything looks the same" we've reached with many 2p and 4p maps. It's time to start really analyzing the minor details and how they are combined, because that is the level of the craft (mapping) and metagame (play) these days.
One thing I really like is that the center bases are actually stable, if dangerous. Much more than Shakuras or XNC, or Scrap Station 3rds ::shudder::, which of course isn't saying much but I think it's important to note because not many maps include stable central bases, they usually are there as terran or protoss bases exclusively, or desperation / victory stomp zerg bases.
...
I'm curious if you tried towers and didn't like them? This is certainly a great map without them (preferred) but the following tower arrangement seems alright too, if a little too nice for tank play. (It would help PvZ imo.)
The exact reason I don't like XWTs on the map is because it would either make the centre base too powerful when held of too hard to hold. I think you placed the towers at the optimal position but in the event of an assault on the centre base it pretty much makes flanks impossible due to the amount of vision one unit can give for the entire army. I really wanted to make the attacking army vulnerable when trying to engage the centre base to balance out the vulnerabilities of the position of the base. By adding watch towers the attacking army loses that vulnerability.
On January 08 2012 08:16 EatThePath wrote:
I also like the concept of the long route to the 3rd which the 3rd ramp plays up, as neobowman addressed. Nevertheless, I think it might prove a little too hard for PvZ against mutas with lings easily threatening both the front and the 3rd while mutas put the stalkers out of position and then smash the walls / cannons / zealots guarding against the lings. This is exacerbated by the long attack distance with four huge runby / flanking opportunities and no towers, and the difficulty in effectively assaulting either the zerg natural or 3rd up a ramp with mass spines / lings.
That's my hunch and I would specifically test on that a bit if you can.
This came up when the map was being created and it's definitely a thing we're going to test for.
|
On January 08 2012 08:16 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 22:44 CaptainCrush wrote:
Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO.... I'm starting to think this specific comment should get a warning, sort of like people posting one-liner responses to strategy [H] threads. I agree with flop that this map is overall uninspiring However, I think it's our responsibility as serious critiquers to see past the "everything looks the same" we've reached with many 2p and 4p maps. It's time to start really analyzing the minor details and how they are combined, because that is the level of the craft (mapping) and metagame (play) these days.
I hope you're joking.... I honestly think it looks like xel'naga caverns with grass and Im not a fan. There is no reason that I can't post that and there is no law, rule, or other governing feature ANYWHERE that made u some sort of mod or even map critiquing authority. Get off your soap box, at the end of the day this is still a game and I'm entitled to my own opinion just like you.
|
This is such a pretty map!
In the OP it states that it is published on NA? Does this mean we are supposed to be able to search for it and be able to create a game? I was looking forward to trying it out but it doesn't seem to show up in search results.
|
|
|
This is one of the most beautiful maps I have seen
|
United States9957 Posts
On January 07 2012 22:44 CaptainCrush wrote:
Ummmm, this is xel'naga caverns with grass? Way to similar IMO....
No... It's a very good copy of New Bloody Ridge from the BW maps :D GO BW MAPS!!!
In other stuff, this map looks really cool and will probs see some interesting games. Hurray for breaking circle syndrome!
|
On January 08 2012 22:43 PlaycaLm wrote:
This is such a pretty map!
In the OP it states that it is published on NA? Does this mean we are supposed to be able to search for it and be able to create a game? I was looking forward to trying it out but it doesn't seem to show up in search results.
I probably forgot to make it public, check again in 20 minutes.
|
Map updated, foliage added, trees added to the centre to make it more natural.
Low ground decoration coming next, doodads on the cliffs surrounding the centre expansions to make it more clear it's unpathable. More texture refinement.
I'm glad most people enjoy the map, it's now public!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z6fSu.png)
Here's what the centre looks like now.
|
So i have to ask a serious question.
Does ESV communicate at all when making maps? Or do you guys just make maps and add an ESV tag to them? Because this map here, and this map, and this map, and this map are basically all the same map. Yes yes, there are slight differences in the terrain and base positions, but lets be honest here, its not really enough to differentiate them all from each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBE6C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RNARV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fEAaO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SylSR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W78kk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rETdi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n3X1a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aeQCq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wuQuv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7kTDN.jpg)
