EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/H3C8e.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VSFEJrm.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ScIv7s7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RnWFlTd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jwTwocS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/06Npro9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HsbklBu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a0nBiqI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CNIHQVn.jpg)
Name DF Illumination
Version 1.1
Bounds 148x136
Bases 10 full, 2 half
Nat2Nat 117.6
Version 1.1
Bounds 148x136
Bases 10 full, 2 half
Nat2Nat 117.6
Please leave a comment, all feedback is appreciated.
[M] (2) DF Illumination
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
ScorpSCII
Denmark499 Posts
| ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
Basically I see that the 3rd is supposed to be walled off by the 2 width back ramp and with that it shouldn't be too hard to hold, even though I would love if the backdoor had a collapsible rocks that collapses to it so walling off would be easier, or maybe there could be destructible rocks in the zone between the nat and the 3rd on the far side of the zone (behind the mid expo), in order to make the area more choked, and therefore easier to defend. Anyways I would love to see just how much the towers cover, I really don't feel the need for them actually at all, since the mid seems easy to defend even without them, I would move them to the outer route, watching the side paths and expansions. Overall a thing I would do, but might not be that good, is putting the base near the main to be like Cloud Kingdom, this will make easier to defend while making slightly closer to the main and allowing more room for the army to be in, since it seems pretty choked as it is now. Another thing is to make the safe 4th's ramp a single width ramp, since right now its still pretty open for a 3/4 base, and its not like its tucked besides other bases, you need to move quite a bit from where your army is in order to reach it. Making it either a full base with a ramp slightly bigger or keep it as it is but with a smaller ramp is the best way. | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cm09pR5.png) + Show Spoiler + for what i can foresee that's the position the red army would take if the player takes his forth and fifth, but if it tries to take the center base there's not much the army could do besides split, but if it does still it would be pretty much imposible for a splited army to fight head to head with a bigger one. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
One thing I like to do is imagine the map is only on one level. I just replace the ramps with flat chokes in my mind. Then I look at the map and try to figure out what the problems are. If there are a lot of problems, then that is a good thing, because it means the highground is there for a reason. If it turns out that the map is a bit open space with some chokes interspersed, then I usually think that something should change. In Illumination, I feel like there is a plethora of pathways and not enough dynamic between paths, chokes, and open spaces. Lowground bases are cool but they seem like one of the only features to the map. I'm not saying anything personal, just that this map isn't my favorite. I think it's a good learning map, but I'd rather not play it or see it played. My suggestion is to remove atleast 2 bases. 12 bases is the max, imo, for 2p maps before they become too big and/or redundant in expansions. 10 expos can work too I believe, with perfect design. You could probably shave some space off the map and reduce the expo count and it'd be better. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I think the middle could be interesting with some tweaks. The opponent able to see you coming with the XNT, the fact that it's lowground, AND your army has to go through a tight choke.. it's too many negatives at once for someone to want to move an army through there. Maybe if the XNTs were where the middle orange pods are on each side? | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
In my opinion, this is a bad idea. You are putting the least valued expansions in the most obsolete locations. Their locations do not benefit them and neither do their resources. The only time that these expansions would ever see gameplay is during the very late game when most/all other resources have been exhausted, or if one was taken as a hidden expansion. I just don't feel like they add much to gameplay. It looks like you went "oh there's some space here, let's add an expansion" and didn't really think too much about it. I like the three small paths through the middle, those add a little more protection to the two low resource expansions there. I also like how the watchtowers are placed near those expansions. I tried something like that with my map Insurrection, but that was a long time ago and the map wasn't really that good anyway. I'm going to reiterate monitor's suggestions and recommend that you remove the two low resource expansions in the corners.  | ||
|
ScorpSCII
Denmark499 Posts
Update: 1.1
| ||
|
Whiplash
United States2929 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On February 25 2013 00:13 Whiplash wrote: I would like to see the expansions below/above the main to be removed and the watch towers either removed as well or put closer to the side edges of the map. Aesthetics look great though! Why? Removing the expansion will take away some of the choices of 4th's and its not like that base is super easy to defend or is forward, I see no reason in that statement. On the watch towers though I agree, they make the forward base much easier to defend, which should not be. | ||
| ||
