skdeimos Profile Joined May 2013 Canada 155 Posts Last Edited: 2013-12-24 17:27:53 #2 Seems maybe a bit too splitty with only one major path through the map. Maybe that will serve to encourage attacks on the backdoors to the in-base nat, though. (EDIT: Hm, looking at the expansion flow again, I think players would end up taking the base on the other side of the backdoor rocks as a fifth, rather than the centre base. In that case, the splitting issue might be a little less relevant.)



I like the fact that you're experimenting with weird resource configurations. I'm gonna have to try something similar to what you did, this is giving me too many good ideas.



You're getting really good at this Broodwar-esque aesthetic style, as well. Wow. Looks fantastic.

FlaShFTW Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 8457 Posts #3



this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.



i also dislike the idea of mineral onlys. the purpose was in bw, minerals were much more used than gas, which is why mineral onlys were not uncommon. in sc2, gas is way more prioritized so you should at least throw on 1 geyser if not 2. i agree with skdeimos on the 1 path through center. you could try to make it an alternative map style seen here:this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.i also dislike the idea of mineral onlys. the purpose was in bw, minerals were much more used than gas, which is why mineral onlys were not uncommon. in sc2, gas is way more prioritized so you should at least throw on 1 geyser if not 2. Writer #1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget

-NegativeZero- Profile Joined August 2011 United States 2101 Posts Last Edited: 2013-12-25 02:48:29 #4 You should probably credit Excalibur from BWMN somewhere - not sure why people who port BW -> SC2 maps tend to never give credit to the original BW mapmaker... i maek map

neobowman Profile Blog Joined March 2008 Canada 3321 Posts #5 On December 25 2013 11:47 -NegativeZero- wrote:

You should probably credit Excalibur from BWMN somewhere - not sure why people who port BW -> SC2 maps tend to never give credit to the original BW mapmaker...

Please. Please.

iamcaustic Profile Blog Joined May 2011 Canada 1448 Posts #6 On December 25 2013 11:47 -NegativeZero- wrote:

You should probably credit Excalibur from BWMN somewhere - not sure why people who port BW -> SC2 maps tend to never give credit to the original BW mapmaker...

You beat me to it. I'm glad to see more people about this. You beat me to it. I'm glad to see more people speaking up Twitter: @iamcaustic

IeZaeL Profile Joined July 2012 Italy 967 Posts #7

@FlashFTW : that map is Alternative , right ? Mereel already did it , so i dont want to make basically a 1:1 copy of a sc2 map. Uh sorry , added it.@FlashFTW : that map is Alternative , right ? Mereel already did it , so i dont want to make basically a 1:1 copy of a sc2 map. Author of Coda and Eastwatch.

-NegativeZero- Profile Joined August 2011 United States 2101 Posts #8 On December 25 2013 15:44 iamcaustic wrote:

Show nested quote +

On December 25 2013 11:47 -NegativeZero- wrote:

You should probably credit Excalibur from BWMN somewhere - not sure why people who port BW -> SC2 maps tend to never give credit to the original BW mapmaker...

You beat me to it. I'm glad to see more people about this. You beat me to it. I'm glad to see more people speaking up

Thanks. Not only do the mapmakers deserve credit, but as someone who's still a (somewhat) active BW mapmaker and BWMN member, I also kind of have a personal interest in informing more people about the site, lol. But even objectively speaking, it's full of great maps which have received no attention and haven't gotten any games played on them, and although it's obviously not the same, I think getting some of those map ideas incorporated into SC2 maps lets them serve at least a little bit of purpose. However, that won't happen unless everyone actually knows the source of all these BW maps... Thanks. Not only do the mapmakers deserve credit, but as someone who's still a (somewhat) active BW mapmaker and BWMN member, I also kind of have a personal interest in informing more people about the site, lol. But even objectively speaking, it's full of great maps which have received no attention and haven't gotten any games played on them, and although it's obviously not the same, I think getting some of those map ideas incorporated into SC2 maps lets them serve at least a little bit of purpose. However, that won't happen unless everyone actually knows the source of all these BW maps... i maek map

Qikz Profile Blog Joined November 2009 United Kingdom 11679 Posts Last Edited: 2013-12-25 23:14:50 #9 On December 25 2013 08:37 FlaShFTW wrote:

i agree with skdeimos on the 1 path through center. you could try to make it an alternative map style seen here:



this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.



i also dislike the idea of mineral onlys. the purpose was in bw, minerals were much more used than gas, which is why mineral onlys were not uncommon. in sc2, gas is way more prioritized so you should at least throw on 1 geyser if not 2. i agree with skdeimos on the 1 path through center. you could try to make it an alternative map style seen here:this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.



This is one of the most commonly carted out statements that are completely wrong on this forum. Minerals are not used any less in SC2, infact they're used the same if not more.



Zealots, Lings, Gateways, Hatcheries, Barracks, Marines and Marauders are all mineral heavy and all the most commonly things built across all matchups.



If anything gas was MORE important in BW which is why mineral only bases were a cool idea since it forced you to adapt your strategy to fit the maps with them in. For example with Terran you'll want to go more vulture heavy in TvT on a map where the third gas is either harder to get or comes later and you'll go more vulture heavy in mech TvZ due to the cost of vultures.



To go back to the map in question I think it's really cool and I hope you find a bunch of people who want to try something new to give it a try since SC2 needs more interesting maps like this. This is one of the most commonly carted out statements that are completely wrong on this forum. Minerals are not used any less in SC2, infact they're used the same if not more.Zealots, Lings, Gateways, Hatcheries, Barracks, Marines and Marauders are all mineral heavy and all the most commonly things built across all matchups.If anything gas was MORE important in BW which is why mineral only bases were a cool idea since it forced you to adapt your strategy to fit the maps with them in. For example with Terran you'll want to go more vulture heavy in TvT on a map where the third gas is either harder to get or comes later and you'll go more vulture heavy in mech TvZ due to the cost of vultures.To go back to the map in question I think it's really cool and I hope you find a bunch of people who want to try something new to give it a try since SC2 needs more interesting maps like this. FanTaSy's #1 Fan | STPL Caster/Organiser | SKT BEST KT | https://twitch.tv/stpl

Qwyn Profile Blog Joined December 2010 United States 2772 Posts #10 On December 26 2013 08:11 Qikz wrote:

Show nested quote +

On December 25 2013 08:37 FlaShFTW wrote:

i agree with skdeimos on the 1 path through center. you could try to make it an alternative map style seen here:



this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.



i also dislike the idea of mineral onlys. the purpose was in bw, minerals were much more used than gas, which is why mineral onlys were not uncommon. in sc2, gas is way more prioritized so you should at least throw on 1 geyser if not 2. i agree with skdeimos on the 1 path through center. you could try to make it an alternative map style seen here:this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.



This is one of the most commonly carted out statements that are completely wrong on this forum. Minerals are not used any less in SC2, infact they're used the same if not more.



Zealots, Lings, Gateways, Hatcheries, Barracks, Marines and Marauders are all mineral heavy and all the most commonly things built across all matchups.



If anything gas was MORE important in BW which is why mineral only bases were a cool idea since it forced you to adapt your strategy to fit the maps with them in. For example with Terran you'll want to go more vulture heavy in TvT on a map where the third gas is either harder to get or comes later and you'll go more vulture heavy in mech TvZ due to the cost of vultures.



To go back to the map in question I think it's really cool and I hope you find a bunch of people who want to try something new to give it a try since SC2 needs more interesting maps like this. This is one of the most commonly carted out statements that are completely wrong on this forum. Minerals are not used any less in SC2, infact they're used the same if not more.Zealots, Lings, Gateways, Hatcheries, Barracks, Marines and Marauders are all mineral heavy and all the most commonly things built across all matchups.If anything gas was MORE important in BW which is why mineral only bases were a cool idea since it forced you to adapt your strategy to fit the maps with them in. For example with Terran you'll want to go more vulture heavy in TvT on a map where the third gas is either harder to get or comes later and you'll go more vulture heavy in mech TvZ due to the cost of vultures.To go back to the map in question I think it's really cool and I hope you find a bunch of people who want to try something new to give it a try since SC2 needs more interesting maps like this.



I dunno about that man, Zerg prioritizes gas in SC2 like no fucking tomorrow. So much so, I think, that it is actually detrimental and people should experiment with a mineral focus.



And Protoss...who only really needs the third's gas.



But Terran? Fucking loves mineral only bases - even in BW. I dunno about that man, Zerg prioritizes gas in SC2 like no fucking tomorrow. So much so, I think, that it is actually detrimental and people should experiment with a mineral focus.And Protoss...who only really needs the third's gas.But Terran? Fucking loves mineral only bases - even in BW. "Think of the hysteria following the realization that they consciously consume babies and raise the dead people from their graves" - N0

FlaShFTW Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 8457 Posts #11 On December 26 2013 08:11 Qikz wrote:

Show nested quote +

On December 25 2013 08:37 FlaShFTW wrote:

i agree with skdeimos on the 1 path through center. you could try to make it an alternative map style seen here:



this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.



i also dislike the idea of mineral onlys. the purpose was in bw, minerals were much more used than gas, which is why mineral onlys were not uncommon. in sc2, gas is way more prioritized so you should at least throw on 1 geyser if not 2. i agree with skdeimos on the 1 path through center. you could try to make it an alternative map style seen here:this splits the center into 2 paths with a possible middle area.



This is one of the most commonly carted out statements that are completely wrong on this forum. Minerals are not used any less in SC2, infact they're used the same if not more.



Zealots, Lings, Gateways, Hatcheries, Barracks, Marines and Marauders are all mineral heavy and all the most commonly things built across all matchups.



If anything gas was MORE important in BW which is why mineral only bases were a cool idea since it forced you to adapt your strategy to fit the maps with them in. For example with Terran you'll want to go more vulture heavy in TvT on a map where the third gas is either harder to get or comes later and you'll go more vulture heavy in mech TvZ due to the cost of vultures.



To go back to the map in question I think it's really cool and I hope you find a bunch of people who want to try something new to give it a try since SC2 needs more interesting maps like this. This is one of the most commonly carted out statements that are completely wrong on this forum. Minerals are not used any less in SC2, infact they're used the same if not more.If anything gas was MORE important in BW which is why mineral only bases were a cool idea since it forced you to adapt your strategy to fit the maps with them in. For example with Terran you'll want to go more vulture heavy in TvT on a map where the third gas is either harder to get or comes later and you'll go more vulture heavy in mech TvZ due to the cost of vultures.To go back to the map in question I think it's really cool and I hope you find a bunch of people who want to try something new to give it a try since SC2 needs more interesting maps like this.

back in BW, each race had its huge mix of mineral only comps.

mass speedlots back when a protoss backbone was ONLY zealot/goon

ling+anything to maximize your gas

MnM which then used vessels and tanks with your excess gas. mech uses a lot of gas, but they can always dump excess minerals into pure vultures for the mines and map control.



now to sc2:

zealots much less used as sentrys have mostly taken over a zealot's job. gas consuming.

zerg more than ever need a support unit. infestors and vipers replace the old defilers, but 2>1 and that means more gas output.

terran remains relatively the same, which is why terran loved those mineral onlys back in the BW days and why they benefit the most out of any race for min onlys.



in conclusion, you list tier-1 units. great. so are you implying that the entire game is played out at a tier-1 base? the reason min onlys worked in bw is because all races actually got something out of them. zerg could build a few more macro hatches. toss spammed out zealots and terran spammed out more marines and vultures (vultures were free).



sc2? the difference is huge. rarely do i ever see macro hatches for zerg and they continue to become more and more gas intensive. toss's land army base uses so much gas unless you go a primary zealot comp. again, cant say much about terran since they remain relatively the same. back in BW, each race had its huge mix of mineral only comps.mass speedlots back when a protoss backbone was ONLY zealot/goonling+anything to maximize your gasMnM which then used vessels and tanks with your excess gas. mech uses a lot of gas, but they can always dump excess minerals into pure vultures for the mines and map control.now to sc2:zealots much less used as sentrys have mostly taken over a zealot's job. gas consuming.zerg more than ever need a support unit. infestors and vipers replace the old defilers, but 2>1 and that means more gas output.terran remains relatively the same, which is why terran loved those mineral onlys back in the BW days and why they benefit the most out of any race for min onlys.in conclusion, you list tier-1 units. great. so are you implying that the entire game is played out at a tier-1 base? the reason min onlys worked in bw is because all races actually got something out of them. zerg could build a few more macro hatches. toss spammed out zealots and terran spammed out more marines and vultures (vultures were free).sc2? the difference is huge. rarely do i ever see macro hatches for zerg and they continue to become more and more gas intensive. toss's land army base uses so much gas unless you go a primary zealot comp. again, cant say much about terran since they remain relatively the same. Writer #1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget

CrystalDrag Profile Joined July 2010 Korea (South) 154 Posts #12 Bottom's natural mineral placement is weird. broodwarmaps.net // US.East - Hyojin

IeZaeL Profile Joined July 2012 Italy 967 Posts #13 Made some little aesthetics changes , as well as fixing minerals placements. Author of Coda and Eastwatch.