Cool design! Only thing I'm worried about is that the distances might be too short overall. Once the rocks are broken, it seems hard for either player to expand to a 4th expansion and react in time to an attack. Guessing it will be very aggressive after 3 or 4 bases.
On August 28 2015 16:50 IeZaeL wrote: actually this is much better than bridgehead even if it is clearly an edit of that map.
Offensive tho at fault. If u have clear evidence, then feel free to post it so we can judge. If u do not have any, then pls stop ur childish play here and in the other threads as well.
On August 28 2015 16:50 IeZaeL wrote: actually this is much better than bridgehead even if it is clearly an edit of that map.
Offensive tho at fault. If u have clear evidence, then feel free to post it so we can judge. If u do not have any, then pls stop ur childish play here and in the other threads as well.
Top and bottom of the image are pretty similar and the horizontal bound seems the same. not to mention the aesthetics bounds. w/e edited my post
Natural and Third seem almost impossible to defend after the rocks are down, since rotating between them is shorter for the attacker than the defender. Once the attacker gets into a good position on the third base you basically lose both of the bases because of the lowground nat. Taking a fourth opens you up to all kinds of counterattacks and drops, whichever base you take. Also, the rush distance is very short!
Oh man, I'm probably going to have to steal that main-nat-third layout for one of my own maps. The natural or third seem a bit vulnerable though if you have to defend both at once after taking out the rocks, especially for Protoss. Maybe I'd add a backdoor half base if I were to adapt that layout. But I don't think that would be a good change to this map specifically.
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Lots of maps share things with another map. I would slow down with the comparisons, this map is different in very fundamental ways and is interesting in its own right.
haha, I didn't mean that it's a copy, since the end outcome is *plenty* different. But it's pretty clear that the map began by opening Bridgehead in the editor and then changing a lot of stuff. And it even has bridge in the name :-P
But I did say that this might be better, so no need to take offense. I think by removing the backdoor it allows some of the really cool ideas to shine more, rather than the whole game be dominated by the fact that each player has this huge backdoor to the main.
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
Hmm.. I feel like there's too much of a choke going into the natural from the middle. Not sure how I would fix it; it's not too easy to choke and get three bases becasue of the third near those rocks, but... eh.. I don't know.
The map is pretty interesting though, very appealing to the eyes too.
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
He already discussed his points. l2read
Both of you, stop being so aggressive about this and calm down.
Okay, seriously, seriously, nice map, I'm afraid of terran abussing the hell out of the ledge over the naturals specially if this map ever gets to be played in LotV.
The map does not really look or feel like bridge head to me. To me the map feels much more like that 8p FFA/4v4 map Semmo had released a while ago, that map mixed with a good touch of Return Of Samus by Namrufus. I had tried messing around with maps that had similar set ups but never truly came out of it (it is an intersting design imo).
But yeah, Overall the map looks quite fun.
These are some changes I would make to it:
The blue being highground pods for overlords. You could also tighten the central choke under the rocks a bit, that would add dynamism to the idea of the bases being around the edges of the map more. Also you could reduce the unpathable area in front of the main bases and that way gain precious space so you can move the clockwise third base nearer to the natural, which would give a new twist and allow new strategies to flourish in the map.
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
I will try to speak clearly!
The bounds, 150x126, are the same. This is not a common size.
Here is an image to show similar things. I turned your map upside-down to make it easier to compare.
I am not saying that this map is exactly Bridgehead. I am saying it shares many things. I think this map is good, maybe better than bridgehead, but now I also think that you are an asshole. Do not be so rude to other people.
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
I will try to speak clearly!
The bounds, 150x126, are the same. This is not a common size.
Here is an image to show similar things. I turned your map upside-down to make it easier to compare.
I am not saying that this map is exactly Bridgehead. I am saying it shares many things. I think this map is good, maybe better than bridgehead, but now I also think that you are an asshole. Do not be so rude to other people.
I think he explained this as well, unavoidably, it looks similar.
On August 28 2015 16:02 Fatam wrote: interesting bridgehead edit. Maybe this is better?
Bridgehead? IT IS NOT BRIDGEHEAD!!!! I am So angry for your saying!
Hahahaha, chill the fuck out.
The bounds are the same, the middle is very similar, the top/bottom are very similar. I'm not even sure if it'll play very differently, the rocks on the third lead to the cliff above the natural mineral line, so breaking down the rocks still is a good harassment tactic.
Even if is entirely accidental, this shares a lot of things with Bridgehead.
Do you have your own eyes? if you have See exactly the map. What is the points you say this map is like to bridgehead? only many bridges? than, you are so foolish and have fucking eyes. SAY THE EXACT EVIDENCES YOUR COMPARISON
I will try to speak clearly!
The bounds, 150x126, are the same. This is not a common size.
Here is an image to show similar things. I turned your map upside-down to make it easier to compare.
I am not saying that this map is exactly Bridgehead. I am saying it shares many things. I think this map is good, maybe better than bridgehead, but now I also think that you are an asshole. Do not be so rude to other people.
Ur drawing looks like it was made not becuz obvious similarities, but becuz u wanted it to have those. Most of those lines do not even correspond in the slightest. I am not defending the map here. I am just pointing out that some ppl here are a little overeager with their conclusions.
I think the idea of making a Bridgehead look-alike (that still plays out completely different and that's super cool) and naming it Emerald Bridge is both brilliant and hilarious.
It's not very similar to Bridgehead at all and will play out extremely different. You're sounding like all the "just another daybreak!" kids. It's Annoying.
I like the natural because it feels very safe early but you still have the "backrocks" but that also plays perfectly into the 3rd. Expanding to that 3rd feels safe but still opens up another path which is awesome and will make it so you can't just park your army at one place and defend 3+ bases. I'd probably increase the ramp sizes on some of the ramps by the 12 and 6 o'clock bases just to open up the edges a little bit more.
It seems to remind people of bridgehead because it has a lot of things that look similar, such as the low ground expansion under the cliff. I think it's pretty different, and probably better, but I'd need to see games on it.
I don't see Bridgehead either, maybe because Bridgehead was so plagued by the backdoor I only saw that in that dreadful map. This is a nice cool looking map though the nat looks really unsafe.
On August 29 2015 23:06 SidianTheBard wrote: It's not very similar to Bridgehead at all and will play out extremely different. You're sounding like all the "just another daybreak!" kids. It's Annoying.
I like the natural because it feels very safe early but you still have the "backrocks" but that also plays perfectly into the 3rd. Expanding to that 3rd feels safe but still opens up another path which is awesome and will make it so you can't just park your army at one place and defend 3+ bases. I'd probably increase the ramp sizes on some of the ramps by the 12 and 6 o'clock bases just to open up the edges a little bit more.
A+, great map.
The nat is not safe at all I think, the ledge is so easy to abuse. I can imagine very stupid things especially in LotV.
Err, yeah meant to type feels very safe early but isn't since you still have backrocks etc etc. Yeah Liberators, reapers & hellions in LOTV might be a little too strong with that kind of nat. Or even the first siege drops against zerg because no way are they spreading creep that far up that early. I think for Hots it's pretty solid though.
I don't know why are you so mad. It will be the opinion that you can accept.
But, you have only angry speaking and you're biting everyone. Now, I can know why foreign people hate korean gamers. They just know shout and don't recognize other people.
"I know I'm the best! SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN! IDIOTS!"
On August 29 2015 22:19 Ej_ wrote: I think the idea of making a Bridgehead look-alike (that still plays out completely different and that's super cool) and naming it Emerald Bridge is both brilliant and hilarious.
Nice map, RexTerran.
lol agreed, and: EVERY ONE! Chill out! (no need to get nasty)