Basically i removed the tight middle from the original and made it a bit more open, i think it will be fun to play on.
Also the desert tileset sucks so im aware of the deco being bad but i just suck at this tileset

If you want to download it, you can do it [url blocked]

UPDATE: Added bridges to middle and a few doodads.

Elaeli

Germany62 Posts

April 24 2010 20:53 GMT

The center bridges were the whole point of Destination ..

YoureFired

United States822 Posts

April 24 2010 20:56 GMT

On April 25 2010 05:53 Elaeli wrote:
The center bridges were the whole point of Destination ..

Yeah sorry, I think that the bridges would make SC2 even more interesting (due to much more mobile armies) and would not lead to the mass camping strategies of BW

Still, nice map. 4/5

Axonn

Croatia287 Posts

April 24 2010 20:57 GMT

If I am noticing correctly you have "fattened" 3 and 9 o clock entrances. Some XelNaga watch towers in the middle would be SC2 style. Good idea (my favorite map) when I lay my hands on SC2 I'll definitely try this out. Tnx

Fogul

United Kingdom179 Posts

April 24 2010 20:58 GMT

My favourite map ever. I think you made it way too open, those middle bridges and hills were a really big part of destination. It looks like teh bridges to the naturals are abit too short. imo needs alot of work but im glad someone is making destination.

Marradron

Netherlands1586 Posts

April 24 2010 20:58 GMT

It seems also the ramps to the 3 and 9 oclock expansions are too wide compared to original. Harder to hold like that

KinosJourney2

Sweden1811 Posts

April 24 2010 20:59 GMT

On April 25 2010 05:56 YoureFired wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yeah sorry, I think that the bridges would make SC2 even more interesting (due to much more mobile armies) and would not lead to the mass camping strategies of BW

Still, nice map. 4/5

No, really. The tight places will really make the map imba. Forcefields will be ridiculously strong if you can make your opponent engage you by a bridge. I believe the only way to counter forcefields is to make the maps bigger/less narrow

On April 25 2010 05:58 Marradron wrote:
It seems also the ramps to the 3 and 9 oclock expansions are too wide compared to original. Harder to hold like that

I guess they are pretty big, i'll make the minerals there high yield to make it more worth defending.

Exteray

United States1094 Posts

April 24 2010 21:00 GMT

even though it's a bit bland but it can definitely serve as a prototype for other mappers =)
has potential 5/5

Trezeguet

United States2656 Posts

April 24 2010 21:05 GMT

It looks really good, but yeah, the bridges kinda need to be there. It may not be "destination" but it looks like it would still be a sweet map to play on. Nice job!

Polar_Nada

United States1548 Posts

April 24 2010 21:05 GMT

#10

not bad. glad you are taking the effort into making maps similar to sc1 ^^

FragKrag

United States11538 Posts

April 24 2010 21:15 GMT

#11

Doesn't look terrible, but it loses a bit of what it had in SC1. Why not make the chokes larger?

EchOne

United States2906 Posts

April 24 2010 21:28 GMT

#12

I'm not really digging the whole open terrain theme in this version. If Protoss wants to maximize force field effect he will just fight along the cliffs and expos along the sides of the map. He can bust Colossus antics there too, so literally the only confrontations he will engage in will be at his bases or yours.

In original Destination, the terrain and bridges in the middle not only make middle areas more defensible, and thus worth defending, they maintain multiple avenues, which results in a wider, more defined range of army movement options. If you look at Nightmarjoo's map making guide (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95409) he discusses linearity and pathing and how they relate to the number of viable paths. The original Destination had quite the bevy of viable paths compared to this incarnation.

Now I will admit that part of the huge difference between BW and SC2 is the effect of terrain, not just because of the difference in how high ground works, but also because of how the match-ups in general work. Therefore old wisdom from BW mapping may apply differently or not at all.

I'm also personally annoyed that one reason you cite for avoiding "tight" terrain is one ability's supposed imbalance that doesn't even have a consensus around it.

Anyways good luck with your future mapping endeavors.

Snausages

United States529 Posts

April 24 2010 21:38 GMT

#13

Like everyone else here, I'd like to see the bridges in the middle come back. Having a completely open field for a middle is boring.

KinosJourney2

Sweden1811 Posts

April 24 2010 21:47 GMT

#14

On April 25 2010 06:28 EchOne wrote:
I'm not really digging the whole open terrain theme in this version. If Protoss wants to maximize force field effect he will just fight along the cliffs and expos along the sides of the map. He can bust Colossus antics there too, so literally the only confrontations he will engage in will be at his bases or yours.

In original Destination, the terrain and bridges in the middle not only make middle areas more defensible, and thus worth defending, they maintain multiple avenues, which results in a wider, more defined range of army movement options. If you look at Nightmarjoo's map making guide (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95409) he discusses linearity and pathing and how they relate to the number of viable paths. The original Destination had quite the bevy of viable paths compared to this incarnation.

Now I will admit that part of the huge difference between BW and SC2 is the effect of terrain, not just because of the difference in how high ground works, but also because of how the match-ups in general work. Therefore old wisdom from BW mapping may apply differently or not at all.

I'm also personally annoyed that one reason you cite for avoiding "tight" terrain is one ability's supposed imbalance that doesn't even have a consensus around it.

Anyways good luck with your future mapping endeavors.

Thanks alot, well. I really disliked the original Destination cause of the narrow bridges. I'd get owned when people abused the tight bridges and with the Forcefield being soo annoying in SC1 im experimenting with wider middles to make Forcefields a bit weaker.

If you look at Lost Temple for an example; basically you can easily seal off half the enemies army easily which really makes protoss very strong.

Cube

Canada777 Posts

April 24 2010 21:56 GMT

#15

instead of bridges in the middle, you could just throw down some terrain, like a divider or a platform or something, it looks so barren...

KinosJourney2

Sweden1811 Posts

April 24 2010 21:59 GMT

#16

On April 25 2010 06:56 Cube wrote:
instead of bridges in the middle, you could just throw down some terrain, like a divider or a platform or something, it looks so barren...

Im thinking right now, i will come up with something eventually

sLiniss

United States849 Posts

April 24 2010 22:05 GMT

#17

Yeayea, bridges, blahblahblah.

People have criticized enough. I just want to say great job! The map looks well constructed

KinosJourney2

Sweden1811 Posts

April 24 2010 22:35 GMT

#18

On April 25 2010 07:05 sLiniss wrote:
Yeayea, bridges, blahblahblah.

People have criticized enough. I just want to say great job! The map looks well constructed

Thanks

I MIGHT implement the bridges but then i'll make them a bit broader. I'll experiment with it