yeah ive been contemplating that and changing the highground near the high yield minerals for a while, i just havent gotten around to it since ive been working on other maps. i want to get as much feedback as i can before i change the map again.

Unsane

Canada170 Posts

February 14 2013 13:15 GMT

- In 1v1, is 'close' positions, say, 6oclock vs 9 oclock? terrible idea, more than half the map will automatically not be used on top of terrible cheesy play.
- In 2v2 this map looks very similar to a map whose name i cant remember, but it had an equal ground backdoor entrance covered by rocks. I abused blink stalkers waaaay too much that map. That whole map was a terrible idea.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

February 14 2013 17:17 GMT

Increase the width of the ramps from the dirt highground around the middle, and remove the tower/structure in the middle. This map needs more openness and flow.

Sumadin

Denmark588 Posts

February 14 2013 19:47 GMT

I am sorry but that expansion pattern won't work. Even if Close position is banned(as it should be) we still see the problem that also occured on Shakuras version 1.0 and Metropolis.

Once you have taken a third, you can start to expand upwards on the partner main, while still holding the lowground, meaning you don't sacrifice any safety by rabid expansion. There is too many expansions covered by too little space.

I could see it working as a 2v2 map and i do dig the way the Backdoor into the natural is made, but this map won't work for 1v1.

SiskosGoatee

Albania1482 Posts

February 14 2013 19:51 GMT

On February 15 2013 04:47 Sumadin wrote:Once you have taken a third, you can start to expand upwards on the partner main, while still holding the lowground, meaning you don't sacrifice any safety by rabid expansion. There is too many expansions covered by too little space.

This is why I don't believe in axial maps in general, they always feature this pattern where both players expand in parallel away from each other. It just doesn't work. You should expand in a twirl around the centre.

DilemaH

Canada402 Posts

February 14 2013 21:48 GMT

I dont see close spawns working at all. Still, I LOVE the map layout and design. So amasing.

Arghmyliver

United States1077 Posts

February 14 2013 22:01 GMT

Contrary to some others' opinion - I actually like the middle of the map I think its very interesting. I do, however, agree that close positions would be too much so with this current layout.

Maybe if you switched the ramp with rocks to make the backdoor the natural and altered the current natural to be a potential third? I dunno.

Looks great though will definitely try it ^_^!

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

February 15 2013 02:29 GMT

#10

Actually if you moved the debris from the backdoor ramps to the main ramps, and then had the players spawn top left / bottom right, it would be a sweet 2v2 map

gronnelg

Norway354 Posts

February 15 2013 09:24 GMT

#11

This map seems a bit chokey for zerg? Imagine toss pusing with FF...

KingCorwin

United States134 Posts

February 15 2013 10:27 GMT

#12

i love the ideas here about switching the third and natural, i think i may just update this map like that. that would make 1v1 more viable on this map too, agreed?

KingCorwin

United States134 Posts

February 26 2013 03:19 GMT

#13

changelog updated, map is now cross spawn only

-NegativeZero-

United States2142 Posts

February 26 2013 03:38 GMT

#14

On February 15 2013 04:47 Sumadin wrote:
I am sorry but that expansion pattern won't work. Even if Close position is banned(as it should be) we still see the problem that also occured on Shakuras version 1.0 and Metropolis.

Once you have taken a third, you can start to expand upwards on the partner main, while still holding the lowground, meaning you don't sacrifice any safety by rabid expansion. There is too many expansions covered by too little space.

I could see it working as a 2v2 map and i do dig the way the Backdoor into the natural is made, but this map won't work for 1v1.

Agreed - actually this map has the potential to be even worse than Metropolis. Although the distances are shorter so the potential for split map situations is reduced, in the event that it happens you'll get the most uber-turtly fastest map possible style game with a secure 8 bases for each player.

In my opinion though, the exact same reasons would make this map perfect as a 2v2 macro map where each player actually has the potential to secure 4 bases, a feat which is near impossible on probably every existing 2v2 ladder map.