|
Overview
*Map Name : Crux Merry-go-round (회전목마)
*Published : KR/AM/EU/SEA
*Size : 160x166
*Players : 2 - 3
Created by Crux_Winpark(=WinparkPrime) Teamcrux.tistory.com SC2Prime.com winpark21@gmail.com
Distances: 47 seconds(Nat. to Nat.)
Thanks to Crux_Eastwindy
|
For the love of all that is holy, finally a 3 player map
|
It's very unfortunate that the degree of symmetry of a 3 or 5 player map can not be as high as that of 2 or 4 player maps caused by the fact that ramps and cliffs can only have direction of (n x 45°). But nice map!
|
On December 31 2013 00:46 Phaenoman wrote: It's very unfortunate that the degree of symmetry of a 3 or 5 player map can not be as high as that of 2 or 4 player maps caused by the fact that ramps and cliffs can only have direction of (n x 45°). But nice map!
Since "rotational symmetry" means massive assymetry in close positions and we use such maps all the time, I dont see a problem with such tiny extra assymetry.
Nice map!
|
yeah finally. Please tell me you file this map for a future GSL
|
<3 threesomes not so fond of 50 shades of grey though :^{
|
United States9627 Posts
3rd seems kinda hard to take especially with that higher ground above the 3rds in the counter-clockwise direction.
|
On January 01 2014 02:50 FlaShFTW wrote: 3rd seems kinda hard to take especially with that higher ground above the 3rds in the counter-clockwise direction.
You can actually take the base in the clockwise direction as the third. I think it might be closer, in general to be honest.
|
On January 01 2014 06:14 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2014 02:50 FlaShFTW wrote: 3rd seems kinda hard to take especially with that higher ground above the 3rds in the counter-clockwise direction. You can actually take the base in the clockwise direction as the third. I think it might be closer, in general to be honest. But with this map layout you need to be able to expand in either direction to prevent massive positional imbalance.
|
the center expansions are modified to reduce positional imbalance.
|
|
Thank heaven you made the air borders look nicer. Just looked like a bunch of spam before.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Don't know why, but reminds me about one of Red Alert 3: Uprising maps
|
United States9627 Posts
dont realy like the islands that much. the rocks on the outside are good because they stop any possible path from that base to the third. maybe get rid of the rocks on the inside so terrans dont just lift and get a free base.
|
FlaShFTW // I removed the rocks on the inside expansions
|
|
I feel like there should be a tad of airspace at the top in order to make it more equal on all sides. the 12 o clock base has no airspace so its harder to harass w/ mutas etc
|
On January 07 2014 15:52 iMrising wrote: I feel like there should be a tad of airspace at the top in order to make it more equal on all sides. the 12 o clock base has no airspace so its harder to harass w/ mutas etc I'm assuming the forcefield wall around the outside marks the edge of flight-blocked areas, so all of the bases have an equal lack of airspace.
|
-NegativeZero- // That way is the easiest way to make an equality on lack of airspace. but I don't want to use this way because of too many blank on the minimap.
|
I tried to reduce massive positional imbalance.
|
|
|
|