| Back to "beta" maps. Show all maps.
Last update for (4)Thesis2.0 : 2007, 06, 29 22:38
| mapID | Mapname (comments) | map size | Author | Rating | Type | play type | | 2295 |  (4)Thesis2.0 | 128*128 | NastyMarine | 0.3 | beta | |
The map has been rated 41 times and got a total of 14 points |
<<>>
You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
| spinesheath | | | Well, you could make the pic less bright...
Almost standard ;) Of course the highground nat is the real nat, so no cliff there. Might be a little troublesome in tvz, as always with these backdoors.
Apart from that, I have not much to say... | | NastyMarine | | | This map definitely did not come out the way I planned. But anyway, heres a brief comment:
I essentially wanted everything on the sides of the map (north, south, east, west) to be ALL highground, but there just wasnt enough room to pull it off, and i needed some more diversity. But I think i like the main/nat(s) set up more now.
As for the mineral blocks:
High ground mineral blocks: all of them are ZERO.
The ramp mineral blocks: 8 each.
All Gases have 2500 - so you can't really utilize it that great. But it still may cause problems.
2 minerals in each main are modified to 500 for macro purposes.
Minerals: 9/7/7
No mineral onlies.
Comments GOGOGO!
modified by NastyMarine | | Deathman101 | | | How the hell does it have 0 min...
BTW: I think the 3/9 o' clock players have more building room. | | Testbug | | | damn! i pressed Ctrl+W
what i writed here ws that this bridges are the worst copy/paste thing i ever seen... jk
the dirt doodad 19 is walkable, so a tank can be droped in the reaver between the red wide rampd and the purple low grand expo.
not sure if a tank can be droped in the purple wide ramp.
the lt high ground expo doesn't look terran favour for me, since the natural is the high ground because of the 0 mineral wall.
no matter if a terran can build a machine shop there.
looks like tank drop = lurker drop.
but i find the wide ramp choke too +terran.
it's tight enought to make an effective push.
even if protoss goes of the 8mineral thing, path is some tight (and terran will abuse those bridges) your rocky ground doesn't really help bridges. SW and NE briges are rocky grounded but not he others.
also you copy/paste the wrong thing, you have an unwalkable thins in all the wider brides and the SW and NE smaller bridges.
NE and SW are ok (only talking about if it's walkable or not, but the brige have some graphical problems...)
then, why does only teal purple high groun(wide ramp) expo has an unbuildable dooodad? other 2 expo are totally buildable.
and also teal looks bigger (maybe is an optical illution or teal and purple are really bigger)
nice map but, doesn't looks like you had too much time/efford/hard work, if a map goes out of my concept, then it's not ok.
if it doesn't looks like the thing i draw in my paper, then it's not my map.nothing is imposible here map making.
i writed it some more nicely in the last post but i pressed Ctral+W
don't know if you understand whet i wanted to say, i'll edit it if you find it offensive.
i don't add GMCS or post some pictures because i know who you are ;)
| | Nightmarjoo | | | lol Nasty. Go back to mapdori ><
Um this map is not very good imo.
1. fucked pathing going counter clockwise, and annoying going clockwise
2. easy 3gas + relatively unflankable middle, if t slow pushes with 3 gas to p near him p has to go around the whole map to flank him
3. I'm pretty sure N/S are smaller than E/W, not having done a rax count yet.
4. I'm not sure about this one, but the area outside N/S bases looks larger than the area outside E/W, if this is true then I'm sure it's related/connected to the main base size difference.
5. The dual entrance thing will cause awkwardness in the main's shape/building room, just like in Marja.
This map is more about a style than the gameplay, which is bad. You're doing it korean mapping style, which results in a nice jpg but a not so nice map imo. Now it's not a bad map, but it's not Nasty level, and it has some issues =/ It's also a boring macro turtle map -.- | | NastyMarine | | | "also you copy/paste the wrong thing, you have an unwalkable thins in all the wider brides and the SW and NE smaller bridges."
No i didnt :P I created these from scratch using the right tiles, and then copy+pasted. I dont see a problem with them :)
"then, why does only teal purple high groun(wide ramp) expo has an unbuildable dooodad? other 2 expo are totally buildable."
dunno what u mean here.
"1. fucked pathing going counter clockwise, and annoying going clockwise"
theres nothing wrong with the pathing, as i have tested it. all you must do is mine out one or more mineral block that has the zero amount.
i understand the 3gas concern, but your unflankable middle is stupid. Open the map in staredit please and place units around the map and see how it comes out.
The mains at 12 and 6 are a bit smaller, but thats only cuz i had to compensate 9 and 3 a bit since they have a more narrow base. And as for the middle 4 areas of crag, they are all the same - it just appears that way since i reshaped it for the bases at 9 and 3 bases.
To the contrary, i made this map for gameplay and not style. | | Testbug | | | i uploaded a replay for you!
my replay shows that green and purple high ground expo (wide ramp) gass can be tanked from the red and blue lost temple thing (near the low ground expo)
no way to tank blue or red. youi can't even drop tanks in the high/low dirt with tar :( | | NastyMarine | | | | thx for the test, i will fix that asap. | | Testbug | | | oh i did not read your comment. i was playing the replay.
look Nasty Marine, i tested all that shit i writed ok?
i don't post a comment if i have not test it.
i'll make pictures for you this weekend.
PURPLE AND GREEN high ground expo habve a doodad.
that doodad is unbuldable!
blue and red high ground expo have an other doodad. red and bule doodad is buildable.
purple and teal is not.
now your bride HAS a problem. just click on a zergling and watch where it can walk and where it can not.
you will see a small dark square.
sometimes you have to make your units move in a small way, imagine you can't drop your zealots when terran is abusing the bridges and you can't because of your unwalkable terrain.
don't you remember my (3)LG thing? i got some of thos spots and units got crazy trying to walk in there.
you know zealots blocking an entrance, zerg will abuse if protoss blocked it wrong, it the "not blocked" is that unwalkable thing, zeglings gon't be able to go :(
if your tanks are sieged in the walkable, maybe your own vultures won't be able to pass because of the unwalkable
if you can't understand, i can post imageshak JPGs for you this weekend.
modified by Testbug | | NastyMarine | | | whoa thats teh first time i messed up on my bridges. thx for noticing that - i get angry when i see that in maps so thx again for that.
Don't mistake me for a newb tho b/c i dont usually screw these type of things up. i appreciate your work tho. and dont take my comment as a bm response, b/c i didnt mean it to.
| | Nightmarjoo | | | If I'm blue, I have to send my worker to W because the block there is 0. This is annoying, I just want to send my scout to the other player and focus on my macro/build order. I can't send my worker to E first, because then I would have to mine out 8 minerals, thus making the worker unuseable to steal other minerals, and then opening a second entrance to the main. Once I get to W, shit he's not there, well now I have to send to N, because the 0 mineral block path leads to him. But now I can't just 1 click on mini map and stop worrying about him, I have to tell him to mine out the mineral wall; this is annoying, and if you don't do that, there are pathing issues. There are pathing issues regardless, I can't send my worker to E first. Now wait, when I send him to W, he runs into 8 mineral wall, now if enemy is W, then it's really no big deal, but if he's not there, my worker now cannot scout N nor E because he's carrying a fucking mineral. So, I have to send my worker to my 0 mineral wall, have him mine out one, then send him around the map to the non adjacent side of W to access the 0 mineral wall, then since he's not at W, send him around the map to the other side of red for his 0 mineral wall, then since apparently he's not at N do the same fucking thing for E, but shit it's been too long he has units now I can't fucking scout him, I already fucking lost the game. Not only is this a waste of time, it's inconvenient as fuck, is bad pathing, and idk why this makes the gameplay more interesting.
Ok, I'm terran S, he's protoss W. I have my nat past the 0 mineral wall, he has both his expos, I just started my 2nd expo and am attacking. Well his lowground base is very narrow, easy to contain, but he can go around. Except, the area to my NE slightly is also narrow, so he gets to flank me from 2 narrow sides. Or if he wants, he can send some troops across the N bridges, then across the S bridges, to attack me from 3 narrow paths! Of course I've mined that path already since it protects my nat. So I am terran, with a couple turrets in some places, and a lot of mines, in a narrow area. Um I win oO Even if my lowground base is vulnerable and he attacks it, I can lift and turtle in my main from that side without weakening my attack at all. I can leave part of the mineral wall intact giving a great choke for me. | | NastyMarine | | | @joel: that is a matter of opinion. and no i did not read it all.
modified by NastyMarine | | Testbug | | | what does b/c means?
oh i did a nice gif for you :(
 | | NastyMarine | | | | LOL! i already fixed it but thanks. and how do you create that????? | | Testbug | | | well... i am.. Testbug! ;)
damn NastyMarine! i neved imagin that i would have to GMCs you!
and you forgot 1 bridge!
the SW smaller bridge
and you did not tell what does "b/c" means :(
modified by Testbug | | Nightmarjoo | | | Nasty you can make gifs with gamemaker.
Also I pointed out some serious gameplay issues, when you have time I suggest reading it over.
b/c = because. Nasty you said my long writing was hard on those who don't speak english as a first language, how about your acronyms?^^ | | NastyMarine | | | | actually testbug, all four of those dooads are unbuildable. | | Testbug | | | DAMN YOU NASTY MARINE!!!!!!!!!
i added some GMCS (BUT I CAN ADD PICTURES IF YOU WANT!!!!!)
now pick up a pylon and try to place it there | | NastyMarine | | | | ok fixed XD | | Nightmarjoo | | | | lol.. | | Testbug | | | :)
www.broodwarmaps.net
we are here for help :D | | flothefreak | | | highground block has zero? can you defend early rushes? 1 worker can mine all the passage away...
the map looks like there'd be imbalances everywhere, but somehow it could work. there hasnt been anything like this, so it _might_ work out, as you cant really point out a striking imbalance. terran seems quite strong, though, in some positions (3gas, short distance for cliffdrop, tanks on highground savingthe expos effectively.
overall i like it to some extent, only it will play VERY awkward, especially until you played around 30 games on it in every matchup to learn the mechanics of the map ;). | | Nightmarjoo | | | | The nat isn't hard to defend, the nat is the expo with the 0 mineral block. You don't open the other one. But of course, they could rush your then backdoor, 1 worker opens the path, 2 makes it pretty wide and you have two entrances to guard. Another issue in this map imo; but according to Nasty these silly gameplay flaws are a matter of opinion not fact, so let's stop bothering him with them. Besides, neither he nor anyone else will play the map so it won't matter. Nasty doesn't test maps =/ | | flothefreak | | | well, i agree with him to a certain extent. what makes this all being based on opinion is that there havent been any similar in this setup, and if there is, it hasnt been tested. so you cant really say how strong each theory scenario is, or what tactics are viable. as you'd need many testgames to be made on EQUAL skillevel (and on lowlvl, mediumlvl, prolvl) to judge this - the decision remains being on your own opinion if it works or not.
the point on this map is that you dont have just another entrance, but you get an expansion through it. P6vZ9 fast expo build for example, i could imagine it to work easily when being able to guard the standardramp with 1 cannon on the 2nd pylon as well. and then, protoss has a good start with an amazing fast 2nd gasexpo, which boosts him a lot more; even if the early game is a bit harder.
what you can do is to argue on the minblockvalues, though. | | spinesheath | | | "but according to Nasty these silly gameplay flaws are a matter of opinion not fact, so let's stop bothering him with them. Besides, neither he nor anyone else will play the map so it won't matter. Nasty doesn't test maps =/"
Nightmarjoo, please just stop with such behaviour. I can understand that you are pissed off a little, but in such cases, just ignore it please. It can always happen that one doesn't consider another's issues as serious. Take it easy. I don't want another fight between two members here over something so trivial... | | trcc | | | Just another though:
Could you add a neutral building in the ramp where you currently have 8 mineral patches, and in front of these buildings you put 2 webs that would cover parts where rangd units would hit the base So only melee units could attack the building in the ramp
I don't know if its possible to do though, I never mastered the webs =(
And as spinesheath said, dont start another fight.. Nightmarejoo you seem to have a big head since u got some props on your maps O.o :| anyway Don't listen to me I'm so inactive that my opinion doesnt count ;)
How is it going here ! :P | | NastyMarine | | | i think joel needs to relax a bit.
@joel and spines: Wat the fuck are you pissed off at in any instance??????? theres nothing to be angry at, so if you want to show frustration towards me - for no reason mite i add, then i dont wanna be here.
I make innovation - i dont want to make the same maps over and over again. theres only so many times you can make a gaia, or luna, or azalea type of variation. then its gets boring. Here i finally make a map were i do something different, and you shoot it down. I thank ppl like flo in this instance just cuz of his optimism, but i dont expect any type of anger or frustration out of good member like you joel at all. so think before you say shit man.
@trcc's suggestions: at first i thought of putting neutrals, but im really just getting tired/bored of using them, that goes for spells especially. They are just overused in my opinion. BWMNers are using it way to much and finally we are getting away from it. D-webs or swarm need to be used with good taste and perfect placement, and there isnt too many times where you can say you've achieved that. and i just dont like them any more so i just stayed away from them all together.
And i didnt start a fight. I just said "thats a matter of opinion" | | Nightmarjoo | | | lol why do people think I'm always starting fights? I'm not trying to start anything, nothing I said was said in anger lol. I saw issues, Nasty ignored them as being trivial, so I made fun of him for acting like a noob, all in good humour. Me and Nasty always get along together, and I know he's a decent mapper oO This just isn't his style, nor is it something I would regard as his normal execution level, ie he's made a lot better than this, I'm making fun of him for it, but nothing was intended to start a fight =/
trcc why do you think I've gotten a big head? I don't get props on my maps anyway -.-
If anyone here has a big head it's Nasty assuming his map has no flaws while ignoring my (untested) theory crafting which makes perfect sense to me, Nasty feels he's a good enough mapper so as to ignore my comments? Ok, it's his map not mine, I don't care.
Nasty spines isn't mad what are you adding him to that^^
wtf is your problem Nasty? I didn't shoot your concept down, I pointed out what I believe are serious game flaws, and instead of addressing them you give me a lecture on being insulting to Europeans through writing in college level English.
I'm not angry nor am I frustrated, why do you think I am? You've known me and my style of writing on this site for quite some time now, I'm always sardonic and sarcastic -.-
"so if you want to show frustration towards me - for no reason mite i add, then i dont wanna be here"
1. If you don't want to be here then leave; however I don't want you to leave.
2. I can't make a sardonic comment after you brush aside my criticism without reading it? lol no reason indeed.
I'm not trying to start any fights, I'm not angry, I don't see why anyone thinks I am angry, nor do I see a reason for all the attacks when all I did was comment his stupid map -.- | | flothefreak | | | the spell-thing is true, however. they're too often placed without being part of the concept, but for random eyecatching.
i am not always optimistic to this experimental maps, but i always keep in mind that even basic imbalances (2entrances i.e.) can be turned into a good overall mapbalance - when being used carefully and wisely by a skilled and experienced mapper, who can find ways to compensate these out-of-the-box-elements.
when i think one succeeded in dealing with these problems (2way-entrance) to a satisfying degree, the map gets a positive comment. only test can tell then, how well the creator actually managed it overall.
this map is executed good, and the clue here is that for every entrance, you got a small timeframe because there are minerals to be mined, and (more important) you get fairly easy expansion, which helps those races that are put behind with the 2 entrances (PvZ, TvP). i would suggest to increase the ramp's mineral value to at least 24 to give zerg the possibility of fast expanding in ZvT properly. | | spinesheath | | | | Yep, Nightmarjoo is right, I'm not pissed off at all :p | | NastyMarine | | | you did shoot it down. and i ignored your comment cuz this map isnt made to play standard and your suggestions are for a standard map - making it feel like a idiotic statement.
Your sarcasm is getting very childish now. I 'lectured' you so maybe you'd realize that just MAYBE, your style is starting to wear thin on me and probobly others.
I just dont want to be criticized b/c i dont agree with what you feel as a flaw. Considering that this map isnt standard, i think you should not get so critical on how this map is not my level OR how it has gameplay flaws. | | Nightmarjoo | | | | LGI? | | Nightmarjoo | | | "your suggestions are for a standard map" Wrong, my suggestions are for how I as a player would play the map. Because it is experimental there could in fact be better ways to play it, I await your suggestions. Please Nasty, address what I said so I can understand why you think it's wrong, it seems logical as a player to me.
I just gave my opinion that you've made better maps in the past, and then explained what I felt were serious gameplay issues, why am I not allowed to express what I see?
modified by flothefreak | | NastyMarine | | | | i havent dodged anything. I just wont address comments that i think arent necessary. maybe i've gotten lazy, but i dont think what you pointed out is relevant. | | NastyMarine | | | | I am no where close to LGI. | | flothefreak | | | boah, you're beginning to start another fight, just like those which made many members leave.
all of you, calm down. there is always a difference on how people create, understand, judge textes and maps. as everyone is always convinced he's right, that will only result in a flamewar. time has proven this often enough, so please try to ignore if others are miles away from what you think. give your statement, make arguments, suggestions, judgements. but dont get mad when someone (evenly skilled) is clearly oppositing your opinion. | | flothefreak | | | i am playing admin here by the way. admin decision is: stop it please =)
dont go crazy about something this simple | | Nightmarjoo | | | I'm still not mad at all =/ Think Nasty's the only mad one if anyone is mad.
I like how the only comments Nasty finds relevant post Testbug are the ones which don't criticize his map. [edit by flothefreak: they are just basic troubleshooting without much theorycraft. so dont get any personal out of it.]
modified by flothefreak | | Nightmarjoo | | | | ok flo. | | NastyMarine | | | I just dont see your pathing comment a viable problem on this map as it was made to play this way - different.
modified by flothefreak | | NastyMarine | | | I need this answered:
What are viable mineral block amounts for both entrances? What is the safest nat for a player to expo --> which entrance should have the lesser amount? | | Nightmarjoo | | | Hope you don't mind me posting your pm flo :) I was typing a response and realized it might be more usefull in the thread, and left your part in to form context :)
Flo: hm, you are too much on theorycrafting on Thesis. Take into account this pathing issue is a) ONLY for the scouting probe, which you CAN spend a little time/waypoints on at the very early game.
furthermore, it is a 0 and a 8 value minblock. as soon as you want to use one of them as direct route to the enemy, it is only _1_ worker required to remove it...it's not like, you'd need to mine a whole expo or a highvalue minblock (like 48)
I already addressed that flo. Pathing is an issue, regardless of what time it takes place as an issue at; a map without pathing issues is better than a map with pathing issues assuming all other variables remain the same.
The problem is that your scout can only mine 1 nonempty mineral block, it becomes useless once it mines 1, because then it cannot mine away the 0 blocks anymore, so you must always scout from the 0 block side unless you are absolutely sure he is in one position, saw his first ovy, found his hatchery etc. This results in very long distances from each base, is an inconvenience, and can result in losing for an inability to properly scout.
Experimental maps are not bad, but if they are maps which players would avoid for inconveniences like that then they are poorly designed maps. As zerg I get a free ovy scout, but p and t do not get this advantage, which normally doesn't matter since they can scout normally. Since they are unable to conveniently do so, or if they get unlucky unable to do so because the player can block the scout, this is an imbalance.
Later game, the problem won't exist because for mobility purposes you will have mined out atleast one block from both mineral walls, however the main shape along with two entrances can be awkward such as in (2)Marja. I don't know if this is an issue in this map or not, it probably is not, but it's something to consider.
My tvp scenario also is valid, there's no reason to see that as irrelevant. Terrans vs protoss are going to push, and protoss will have to counter a short distance push, which will be hard, as I already stated. Now with 3gas carriers will be very strong here, and a good counter to a push, but good luck with the timing on that; I already specified the timing on the terran push, no protoss will have a useable carrier fleet by then. | | flothefreak | | | i would suggest making the ramp blocks like, 16 or such, because most players will try to take the highground natural (easier to defend). in addition, having a ramp with 2 blocks as backdoor is MUCH more comfortable than a 4-block mineral wall, which gives more options to the attacking player. so the highground natural is the first choice _IMO_ and should have a barrier of 8 each. [EDIT]
nightmarjoo brought up some serious issue. so i now suggest a barrier of 1x0mins, 1x8 (next to 0-vaue) and 2x16. this corrects the scouting inequities/gambles but keeps the enemy's options limited as well, so you always know where your enemy will (have to) use this wall.
/edit
no, i certainly dont mind constructive and reasonable, argumenative posts :)
i see your scouting concern. i therefore changed the beginning of the post on the minblock values.
your gameplay scenario is possible (not likely) to happen in such a way. can we all agree (esp. nasty as author) that it would be a good idea to enlarge one (or both) of all dual-bridges so they are not one, but are touching each other with the railing?
this would not spoil the map at all (would be cool actually) while helping if an issue like nightmarjoo described is occuring.
and yeah, i need to change my style to using not that many bracket injections. 8)
modified by flothefreak | | Nightmarjoo | | | | "no, i certainly dont mind constructive and reasonable, argumenative posts :)" lol then what the fuck are you doing in bwm, wrong place for that shit^^ | | flothefreak | | | hehe
check out my edits on my latest post | | NastyMarine | | | | i will make an edit for the bridges and teh mineral values. I knew that may need a change. | | NastyMarine | | | | Updated. Didn't touch the bridges to make them wider, but i did fix 2 of them to the correct width. | | Testbug | | | now go and copy/pase ti correctly T_T
and make all 4 rocky grounded briges = !!!
terran abusing the briges will be better at SE and NW, because they can build a lot of turrets.
but SW and NE have too many rocky ground (remember paranoid androi thing)
that's about rocky ground for terrans to build turrets...
NOW PICK UP A ZERGLING AND TRY TO PLACE IT NEAR YOUR DAMN BRIDGE AGAIN.
YOU ANT A GIF?
(pst! top secret: testbug is talking about the wider norht bridge)
2:
DIRT DOODAD 19 IS FUCKING WALKABLE!
don't use it NEVER.
teal high ground expo is tankable.
i'll GMCS you | | Nightmarjoo | | | | This post is not displayed due to its content | | NastyMarine | | | | This post is not displayed due to its content | | flothefreak | | | | stop this stupid sidepunching which only leads to the fight again. get your ego under control, you dont need to show in every post that you are still pissed. | | NastyMarine | | | Updated to 2.0
Removed all bridges and extended some highground to divide teh naturals for each base. | | flothefreak | | | | hm, i liked the old version better. do you still have it? i'd like to have a mixture of the 2 versions, like the old one just opened. the II version has lost much style, which is what i love about your maps :( | | Lancet | | | | Nice map although the center looks very open and barren. What about placing some island expos with a normal gas value in the corners? Also please update the picture. I think the map name and description are dopey. | | NastyMarine | | | | i updated it :P I was uploading the wrong picture ---> thus, @flo: i still have the other version. | | NastyMarine | | | | i dont have enough room for corner expos. | | ptar | | | | I'm with flo. Think the map lost the style. You shouldn't remove the bridges, now the middle is very open. | | Testbug | | | WHAAAA???
come on.
we want version 1 back!
you removed'em all only because you don't know how do desert bridges work?
i try to help :( | | NastyMarine | | | @Testbug: i kno how they work, but with this layout, there isnt enuff room to keep it playable for PvT. I mean i could do it, but I won't like it that much. In a phrase: art is only as good as the artist's last words. I think this way, 2;2 will be alot better, and players won't be restricted to the bridge paths only. and that essentially will keep 1;1 good too.
sure it lost some flavor but at this point, playability > style. | | Nightmarjoo | | | | This post is not displayed due to its content | | NastyMarine | | | | This post is not displayed due to its content | | flothefreak | | | to make it REALLY clear now:
SHUT UP you two.
nasty, didnt the idea with making the 2 bridges larger work out for you? i really think it would save the map. | | NastyMarine | | | | removing those bridges didnt destroy the map, it just changed the flow actually. | | Nightmarjoo | | | | lol it's ok Nasty, pms happens, just let us know when you're over it so we can talk to you/comment your maps without get yelled at. | | NastyMarine | | | | w.e. man | | flothefreak | | | | nasty, i think the removal of bridges and water destroyed the map, because you lost all terrain-tactical options. furthermore, a map being only one large center is taking away almost every strategical aspect. | | NastyMarine | | | | lol its amazing how many comments this map got. in like 2 and a half days it got 60+ | | flothefreak | | | | the more style and potential a map has, the more comments you get :> | | Nightmarjoo | | | Most of it is me wondering if/why you have pms and you telling me to shut the fuck up, an indicative of you having pms :)
Also, I got tons of comments on Angband 3600 ft. 1.2 newspost, most of it was people saying "this map sucks", which of course translats to "ROFL I'M A NOOB CAN YOU TELL?" :) | | ptar | | | Yeah Joel, but i think for normal melee gamer, Angbang sucks. It's too experimental.
Nasty i think you get so much comments cuz you update your maps and listen to the ideas of others. Do you add some bridges?
| | NastyMarine | | | | nope, no bridges. | | Nightmarjoo | | | lol ptar, if Nasty listens to the ideas of others, he is selective in who he listens to very much so^^
Ptar, though I don't think Angband 3600 ft. 1.2 sucks, I agree with you about it being hard for gamers, in that it's something they're not used to. Angband would be fine if everyone loved Iron Curtain and Arkanoid, but those maps haven't caught on, so Angband can't. Honestly it's not that complicated. It's just an air map that can become a ground map. People don't like air maps, so they wouldn't want to play it. |
| Replays
- - Testbug vs  computer(1on1, 1.15)
Upload replay for this map |
Add your comment:
Because of heavy spam on the map comments, it is needed to be logged in to post. We are sorry that this has to be done because nothing else stops spam bots
|  |
thesis2.0(n).jpg)
