You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
|"WTF is dis concept??"|
It's a 2 player map without using high dirt cliffs, exclusively using basilica cliffs to generate elevation difference.
"OMG Basilica is unbuildable you dumb sh**!"
I substituted high flagstones for basilica. It blends quite well and creates buildable mains with correct vision/hit%.
"zomg u hav so much WASTED SPACE!!111one1"
"Wasted Space" is a garbage term applied by a random TL mapmaker as an unjust qualifier for melee maps. According to him, Python should be scrapped because its *whole center* is wasted space! That means the map must suck!
"128x128 is too big for 2 players!"
Perfectly valid, but I wouldn't say it does any harm. If anything, it encourages taking map control and macromanagement.
"UR RAMPS SUX LOL"
...please make better basilica ramps with correct vision/hit/buildable matrices and then talk.
"TANKZ R IMBA ON CL1FFS OMFG NOOB MAP 1/10"
...and would that explain why the TvP ratio here is <50%?
"The natural creep doesn't extend to the ramp; zerg players might have difficulty making a tight sunken wall to defend."
While true, a decent sunken wall placed away from the ramp also achieves a similar effect, due to the length of the natural. Innovation is key ;)
"The 3rd gas is too difficult to hold."
Not really; depending on your map control you can hold 3, or even 5, gas bases without much difficulty. T/P games on this map end up with each player taking half of the map with the occasional expansion razing from heavy pressure on the other side. When a zerg is involved, it's the player's responsibility to pressure/contain the other (which, really, is the case for most maps...)
|There really is no wasted space lol. Wasted space is more like any place on the map where ground units can't walk, but makes a large percentage of the map. This is not the case here, but you have a different idea about wasted space.|
At first, it seems as if the main might be tankable, but it would be nice if you told us that in your first comment, unless you don't know the answer. Big concern, obviously, is if the main minerals are in range of siege tanks, which would make harass by a terran on this map way too destructive. It would be more like game winning harass rather than advantage giving harass.
The 3rd gas, for zerg, might not be too hard to hold, although it just looks uncomfortably open to harass. The mineral only, though, I would try to alter; it looks too easy to hold.
Imo, the side gas expoes at 3 and 9 are too small/uncomfortable, not as a mapper, but as a player. They also seem a little too easy to defend, even if it was to be attacked by a large army.
All in all, the map looks good overall, the decoration could be better, and it might be a little too big because in other 128x128 maps, which are usually 4 player maps, and which people use for 1v1s, have 4 mains to reduce the size of the middle. Here, this is not the case, so it might be too easy to flank a race with less mobility, particularly terran. The ramps are alright, as long as the vision/miss%/height work correctly, but just to let you know, we have ramps here on our map database that could help you.
Good job, keep it up.
|terran seems like hes gonna have a hard time with mech|
|heh, im the one who refered you to the site.|
Tbh the map is too wide and plain. You need to work on decoration and some parts of the map are just stupid (not needed at all).
--Active.oOjeff vs dLG)Murmel(1on1, 1.16)
Upload replay for this map