IeZaeL Profile Joined July 2012 Italy 967 Posts Last Edited: 2014-10-26 10:55:41 #1

Current version 1.1







Sorry not much aesthetics this time.



Bounds : 136*160

Xelnagas : 0

Various minerals formation , 6m1g bases.



V1.0 Something simple , inspired by this bw map : http://www.panschk.de/mappage/pics/4368.jpg Current version 1.1Sorry not much aesthetics this time.Bounds : 136*160Xelnagas : 0Various minerals formation , 6m1g bases.V1.0 + Show Spoiler + Author of Coda and Eastwatch.

The_Templar Profile Blog Joined January 2011 your Country 52593 Posts #2 I'll be the first to admit that I thought the starting locations were in the top left and bottom right high ground and got really confused. ^^ Moderator Starcraft 3 when

[PkF] Wire Profile Joined March 2013 France 22019 Posts Last Edited: 2014-10-25 17:55:01 #3 On October 26 2014 02:49 The_Templar wrote:

I'll be the first to admit that I thought the starting locations were in the top left and bottom right high ground and got really confused. ^^



Me too. I was thinking "this map is garbage, how do you ever expand in PvZ ?"



As it is the map looks interesting, especially the not so much exposed gold. It's hard to say anything relevant on it before playing it. I'll try and play some games on it with my practice partner tomorrow (PvZ). I'll let you know how it goes ^^ Me too. I was thinking "this map is garbage, how do you ever expand in PvZ ?"As it is the map looks interesting, especially the not so much exposed gold. It's hard to say anything relevant on it before playing it. I'll try and play some games on it with my practice partner tomorrow (PvZ). I'll let you know how it goes ^^

TheFish7 Profile Blog Joined February 2012 United States 2814 Posts Last Edited: 2014-10-25 18:05:20 #4 I think each race takes a different third here



Making the 6m bases normal gas yield is a good choice imo ~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~

Quidios Profile Joined June 2013 Sweden 74 Posts #5 I think the changes you made to the northwest/southeast corners broke the concept of the original map. Which is too bad because I like the original.

Xenotolerance Profile Joined November 2012 United States 464 Posts #6 It's a cool adaptation. I agree that the map concept changes when you remove the corner pathways, but I see that as a necessary change to adapt to SC2. Maybe you could keep them somehow with rocks if you brought those bases down to middle elevation. www.alonetone.com/xenotolerance

Big J Profile Joined March 2011 Austria 16272 Posts #7 I'm really trying to identify what strategy would be horribly broken here, but it looks like the map is quite well thought through despite being very experimental. Maybe blink PvT.

I guess the choice of using smaller bases really makes this much easier to balance.

sTYleZerG-eX Profile Joined January 2010 France 427 Posts #8 Nice, I like both maps, the BW version and this 1 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain, And 100% reason to remember the name!

iGrok Profile Blog Joined October 2010 United States 5008 Posts #9 First thing I thought when I saw this map was, "that looks like a cool BroodWar map. Nicely done! MOTM | Stim.tv | TL Mafia | Fantasy Fighting! | SNSD

snexwang Profile Joined April 2011 Australia 224 Posts #10 That looks so fucking good.

Quidios Profile Joined June 2013 Sweden 74 Posts #11 On October 26 2014 03:47 Xenotolerance wrote:

It's a cool adaptation. I agree that the map concept changes when you remove the corner pathways, but I see that as a necessary change to adapt to SC2. Maybe you could keep them somehow with rocks if you brought those bases down to middle elevation.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.

Xenotolerance Profile Joined November 2012 United States 464 Posts Last Edited: 2014-10-26 04:27:46 #12 On October 26 2014 10:22 Quidios wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 26 2014 03:47 Xenotolerance wrote:

It's a cool adaptation. I agree that the map concept changes when you remove the corner pathways, but I see that as a necessary change to adapt to SC2. Maybe you could keep them somehow with rocks if you brought those bases down to middle elevation.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.



If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable. If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable. www.alonetone.com/xenotolerance

-NegativeZero- Profile Joined August 2011 United States 2101 Posts #13 On October 26 2014 13:26 Xenotolerance wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 26 2014 10:22 Quidios wrote:

On October 26 2014 03:47 Xenotolerance wrote:

It's a cool adaptation. I agree that the map concept changes when you remove the corner pathways, but I see that as a necessary change to adapt to SC2. Maybe you could keep them somehow with rocks if you brought those bases down to middle elevation.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.



If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable. If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable.

It's blocked by neutral DTs in the BW version, this allows workers to mineral walk through to take the backdoor expansion but blocks all other ground units. It's blocked by neutral DTs in the BW version, this allows workers to mineral walk through to take the backdoor expansion but blocks all other ground units. i maek map

TheBloodyDwarf Profile Blog Joined March 2012 Finland 7511 Posts #14 Quite few vespene to get as protoss. And protoss needs vespene Fusilero: "I still can't believe he did that, like dude what the fuck there's fandom and then there's what he did like holy shit. I still see it when I close my eyes." <- reaction to the original drunk santa post which later caught on

IeZaeL Profile Joined July 2012 Italy 967 Posts #15



Update Author of Coda and Eastwatch.

Quidios Profile Joined June 2013 Sweden 74 Posts #16 On October 26 2014 13:26 Xenotolerance wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 26 2014 10:22 Quidios wrote:

On October 26 2014 03:47 Xenotolerance wrote:

It's a cool adaptation. I agree that the map concept changes when you remove the corner pathways, but I see that as a necessary change to adapt to SC2. Maybe you could keep them somehow with rocks if you brought those bases down to middle elevation.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.

No, those changes are not necessary adaptations to SC2. By adding shortcuts through the map it closes the map and makes it even more narrow and constricted and removes alot of choices the original concept gives when it comes to army movement. Unless ofcourse if you're talking about strengthening SC2 allins.



If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable. If it's blocked by rocks I see it working just fine in SC2. I referred to how If it's open from the start, as in BW, that isn't feasible in SC2. Although, it actually looks like there are some little blockers on the backdoor ramp in the BW version? I'm not clear on what those dark spots might be. If there were rocks there I would see it being totally workable.

You're missing the point. The issue is not if that ramp has rocks on it or not, it's the location of it. Rocks doesn't help it outside the the early early game. How you design the actual backdoor is another matter.

You're missing the point. The issue is not if that ramp has rocks on it or not, it's the location of it. Rocks doesn't help it outside the the early early game. How you design the actual backdoor is another matter.

ejozl Profile Joined October 2010 Denmark 2906 Posts #17 Map looks super cool.

Air distance is quite close, but you can adapt. SC2 Archon needs "Terrible, terrible damage" as one of it's quotes.

SwedenTheKid Profile Joined July 2014 567 Posts #18 Personally I'm not a fan of the main-looking bases in the top left and bottom right, especially because of the space they take up and the small ramp. But I can see how it works better in Sc2 this way than the BW version would. Still love the middle and main layout though. Better map than I could ever make. Casual Mapmaker

FrozenProbe Profile Joined March 2012 Italy 237 Posts #19 Flying Shark is Needed

IeZaeL Profile Joined July 2012 Italy 967 Posts #20 On October 29 2014 18:09 FrozenProbe wrote:

Flying Shark is Needed

0/10 would not play on this map ! 0/10 would not play on this map ! Author of Coda and Eastwatch.

1 2 Next All