Diamond Profile Blog Joined May 2009 United States 9882 Posts #2 You suck at retiring bro. Ballistix Gaming Global Gaming/Esports Marketing Manager - twitter.com/esvdiamond

prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts #3 On January 09 2012 10:44 Diamond wrote:

You suck at retiring bro.

lil' bit.



Working on analyzer pics right now guys~ lil' bit.Working on analyzer pics right now guys~ ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

Dukat Profile Joined April 2009 United States 235 Posts #4 On January 09 2012 10:44 Diamond wrote:

You suck at retiring bro.

Quoting for truth. Quoting for truth.

Clank Profile Joined April 2011 United States 548 Posts #5 im loving that a lot of these new maps are so different from what we've seen so far. this map looks really interesting with the rock placements

Gfire Profile Joined March 2011 United States 1699 Posts #7 Kinda feels to me like it would be hard to defend both back and front bases. The path that goes around goes all the up into the middle. It doesn't seem like there's any good place to put your army once the back door rocks are down. Not a super well explored concept, though, so I can't really say for sure. all's fair in love and melodies

prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts #8 On January 09 2012 10:58 Gfire wrote:

Kinda feels to me like it would be hard to defend both back and front bases. The path that goes around goes all the up into the middle. It doesn't seem like there's any good place to put your army once the back door rocks are down. Not a super well explored concept, though, so I can't really say for sure.

Match Point had a similar "issue." Players dealt with it by maintaining a strong presence on the map and constantly pressuring expansions while moving their army around key points of the map. I don't think this map is any different in that regard Match Point had a similar "issue." Players dealt with it by maintaining a strong presence on the map and constantly pressuring expansions while moving their army around key points of the map. I don't think this map is any different in that regard ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

Antares777 Profile Joined June 2010 United States 1971 Posts #9



I'd also like to say that you did an amazing job at mixing two entirely different concepts together and create something functional, good job!



I really like how Deception influences players to expand in both directions, which will lead to some really interesting games. I do think that the area outside the natural is very open and could use an obstruction somewhere. Defending both your natural and the other side of the map is going to be very difficult though. You either have to move through the main to defend, or move through the middle, and to be honest, both take a good amount of time. I'd like to suggest a path between the low ground base hugging the main and the ground outside of the natural blocked by rocks. I think that would improve the army movement on the map a lot.I'd also like to say that you did an amazing job at mixing two entirely different concepts together and create something functional, good job!

TheAngelofDeath Profile Blog Joined May 2010 United States 2031 Posts #10 This is the greatest thing ever. prodiG, you already know how bad I wanted this!! "Infestors are the suck" - LzGamer

Inside.Out Profile Blog Joined December 2010 Canada 559 Posts #11 i think 2 base tank pushes where they siege up below the main would be way too strong, though it is a very cool concept

Xarayezona Profile Joined August 2011 United States 72 Posts Last Edited: 2012-01-09 04:01:58 #12 I actually wanted to see that thing BroodWar mapmakers did where they put 8 minerals blocking an expansion. Doesn't actually do much, but it's cute and it's nostalgic.



I also couldn't quite tell, but are those destructible rocks at the backdoor or just shrubbery?

prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts Last Edited: 2012-01-09 04:11:52 #13 On January 09 2012 12:40 EcstatiC wrote:

i think 2 base tank pushes where they siege up below the main would be way too strong, though it is a very cool concept

Where would you seige? The main is pretty friggen huge, you could VERY easily keep your buildings away from the edge if you're worried about that



Where would you seige? The main is pretty friggen huge, you could VERY easily keep your buildings away from the edge if you're worried about that On January 09 2012 13:00 Xarayezona wrote:

I actually wanted to see that thing BroodWar mapmakers did where they put 8 minerals blocking an expansion. Doesn't actually do much, but it's cute and it's nostalgic.



I also couldn't quite tell, but are those destructible rocks at the backdoor or just shrubbery?

Both! There's LOS blockers under the rocks to prevent Protoss from throwing a pylon down and warping onto the other side of the rocks without an observer or something. (If you still die to observer + pylon then you'd have died just as bad to Warp Prisms so that complaint is null and void IMO) Both! There's LOS blockers under the rocks to prevent Protoss from throwing a pylon down and warping onto the other side of the rocks without an observer or something. (If you still die to observer + pylon then you'd have died just as bad to Warp Prisms so that complaint is null and void IMO) ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

monitor Profile Blog Joined June 2010 United States 2388 Posts #14



I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I love how this map turned outI think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.

RumbleBadger Profile Joined July 2011 322 Posts #15 Very neat, as always.



My one complaint is that the backdoor kinda forces a player to take the third up against the main and then that nearby fourth and fifth to really be safe from the backdoor, but naturally a zerg player would like the clockwise third more, so it kinda throws off the zergy mojo a tad. But besides that, the map seems really neat.



Also, really curious as to how the third inset into the main will work out. It seems a little choky and hard to defend because the pathing from the natural to that base seems pretty long.



Actually, there's a lot of things with this map where the pathing is really interesting and I'm not sure how it will play out. No matter what, I think this map will produce some really interesting gameplay. Games before dames.

DYEAlabaster Profile Blog Joined August 2011 Canada 1009 Posts #16 On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:

I love how this map turned out



I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I love how this map turned outI think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.





I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.



Maybe that's just me though, I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.Maybe that's just me though,

prodiG Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 2015 Posts #17 On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:

I love how this map turned out



I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I love how this map turned outI think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.





I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.



Maybe that's just me though, I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.Maybe that's just me though,



3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~ 3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~ ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir

monitor Profile Blog Joined June 2010 United States 2388 Posts #18 On January 09 2012 14:35 prodiG wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:

On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:

I love how this map turned out



I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I love how this map turned outI think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.





I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.



Maybe that's just me though, I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.Maybe that's just me though,



3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~ 3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~



I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though. I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though.

LunaSaint Profile Blog Joined April 2011 United Kingdom 619 Posts Last Edited: 2012-01-09 08:46:42 #19 + Show Spoiler +

My god, rocking up that cliff must have taken a hell of a lot of work. I'm thoroughly impressed. My god, rocking up that cliff must have taken a hell of a lot of work. I'm thoroughly impressed.

Gfire Profile Joined March 2011 United States 1699 Posts #20 On January 09 2012 14:43 monitor wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 09 2012 14:35 prodiG wrote:

On January 09 2012 14:14 DYEAlabaster wrote:

On January 09 2012 13:38 monitor wrote:

I love how this map turned out



I think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though. I love how this map turned outI think you should make the backdoor ramp 2x wide instead of one, so that it is more viable for moving an army through when you take the backdoor fourth. 1x is just so small and easily abused (FF ramp and kill fourth). Additionally the three bases in the top left/bottom right may be too close and turtley. We should test before making the expansions more open though.





I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.



Maybe that's just me though, I feel that, backdoors being what they are, it would be a bad choice to make the ramp leading away from the main a 3x. I feel that would lead to much more abuse than a 2x ramp. Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue in some matchups, but I could see a huge problem in pvp, for instance. I feel that's why, generally, mains HAVE TO HAVE 2x ramps.Maybe that's just me though,



3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~ 3x is a bit too much in my opinion. I wanted to keep it 1x so that it was easy to defend but have the rock moved away from the ramp so melee units like lings can get a very good surface area as well as create a neat area for hidden tech structures. All in all, I was trying to avoid creating a Blistering Sands backdoor and keep it on the mostly defensive side of things so you that you don't see anything but players basing their strategies exclusively on exploiting backdoors. Obviously testing might show otherwise but we'll see how it goes from here~



I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though. I guess having a 2x backdoor ramp would mess up PvP a bit more than necessary... but I didn't mention anything about a 3x. I'm just talking about increasing the backdoor ramp by one so that you can move your army through that pathway to defend the fourth expansion (if you take the backdoor fourth). Maybe it isn't necessary though.

There's also the option of having a wider main ramp partially blocked by destructibles like on Crevasse, which can allow more army movement through in the later game (something which is underused imo.) There's also the option of having a wider main ramp partially blocked by destructibles like on Crevasse, which can allow more army movement through in the later game (something which is underused imo.) all's fair in love and melodies

1 2 3 Next All