|
Created in partnership with Uvantak
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RUA0KEZ.jpg)
Bounds : 166x166
MainHall to MainHall(CLOSE) : 40sec
MainRamp to MainRamp(CLOSE : 34sec
NatHall to natHall(CLOSE) : 32sec
MainHall to MainHall(CROSS) : 52sec
MainRamp to MainRamp(CROSS : 44sec
NatHall to natHall(CROSS) : 40sec
TLMC8 Submission
Primary Category : Experimental Resources map
Secondary Category : Macro Map
Map explanation
+ Show Spoiler +Every base outside of main/natural is a gold base. There are three variations of them however:
1- 6m1g bases as lowground and highground bases
2- 4m2g bases as middle ground bases
3- 6m bases as central bases.
This allows players to choose players how they wanna pursue the victory, as the 4m2g base is far more valuable in terms of vespene resources than the other ones, but it is also really hard to hold versus the enemy harassment from the other side of the little wall+ from the highgrounds.
Aesthetics
+ Show Spoiler +
Yup. lets see what people think since from one side i got people telling me zerg are screwed on this map while on the other side i got other people telling me they're too overpowered.
+ Show Spoiler +
Download Link : https://mega.nz/#!NMhRmBxD!DW6cke9WlLVBhvCyiHocfwcFG9ZRL6h3FBu1Dx1oP6k
|
God damn, your maps are disgustingly beautiful.
|
No need to say it over and over, I know it.
|
surprised this didn't make the short list
|
Super gorgeous. Don't remember another map mixing those aesthetics that well.
|
Oh god how am I ever going to compete with these aesthetics. I wish Blizzard would just let IeZaeL terrain and doodad all there maps.
I guess the balance issue is the 3rd base, which would probably be the forward gold because of the two gas(?), being hard to defend due to the openness and form of the terrain, disregarding siege potential. And I assume this is meant to be countered by the openness favoring zerg and limiting the ease of expansion for other races. Can’t say I’m a huge fan of all the other bases being gold. I feel like one more standard base as a non-forward 3rd would ease balance issues. But I guess it all comes down to balance testing. I do like the overall flow of the map.
|
|
|
Now THIS is an example of experimental resources. Normally you would expect a weird expansion or two, but everything other than the mains and nats are nonstandard. Nice to see a traditional 4 spawn rotational map too. I think it may be difficult to balance with so many half bases though. Hopefully the size of the map will discourage players from doing two base all-in strategies, getting them to expand to the nonstandard bases.
Aesthetically this is really beautiful!
|
Cool map. WP on the theme and execution of it. Hard to say balance without seeing games any time you have uncharted territory maps like this, so I don't think I can really comment there. But nothing seems obviously broken.
|
Thanks, would have really liked to see some games on the map to see if the gold were actually balanced. From my own testing,they were, unfortunately the judges thought there were better maps.
|
there is quite some variety how the map works in close position spawns. I do not want to cry 'positional imbalance', but i wonder why this is not addressed so far.
|
On February 21 2017 16:41 Samro225am wrote:
there is quite some variety how the map works in close position spawns. I do not want to cry 'positional imbalance', but i wonder why this is not addressed so far.
I did the core layout of the map, and from the many variations it went through, I spoke with iez about changing the highgrounds to lowgrounds in order to reduce the strength of them as a platform for siege units like Libs or tanks. But that would also mean that several other changes would also need to be done to accommodate for it, so Iez (we?) decided to send it as it stands, because even when it had this considerable positional imbalance, it was very much less so than previous versions because of the way Iez changed the bases around.
But yeah ^^
|
On February 21 2017 18:03 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 16:41 Samro225am wrote:
there is quite some variety how the map works in close position spawns. I do not want to cry 'positional imbalance', but i wonder why this is not addressed so far. I did the core layout of the map, and from the many variations it went through, I spoke with iez about changing the highgrounds to lowgrounds in order to reduce the strength of them as a platform for siege units like Libs or tanks. But that would also mean that several other changes would also need to be done to accommodate for it, so Iez (we?) decided to send it as it stands, because even when it had this considerable positional imbalance, it was very much less so than previous versions because of the way Iez changed the bases around. But yeah ^^
you all know how much i like 4spawn maps to work, but with this said I wonder if this could not be a better 2spawn map. Why not give a chance to your ideas only because of positional imbalance. it is sad, but you all know it, 4spawn maps are very restrictive, because of positional balance and rush distances (min/max), so i would just rebuild the core elements as a 2spawn map instead of throwing the whole thing away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AKSZQl9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cr1cWi5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E4Jb04Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3E0z9s6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a9NpMlJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WhTgfG6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d552QVl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sEkn1da.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jiNlhfC.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://media.giphy.com/media/NTBm2RQWurgis/giphy.gif)
