[M] (2) TPW Odin

---

On February 08 2012 05:56 Duvon wrote:
Indeed, Lion King it is.
Concern: Xel'naga coverage of attack routes. Range pic?

---

---

On February 08 2012 06:18 MachineGunPanda wrote:
This map seems really interesting. I will have to play it to get a feel for it though. A question, would you be totally against the idea to actually remove the Xel'naga towers completely from the map? Thus creating a more suspenseful aspect and scout necessity for the map?

---

---

On February 08 2012 06:41 Barrin wrote:
Baller. This is a proper air vertical axis reflection symmetry map.

Plenty of air space in the right places? check
Harassable nat? check
Multiple third choices? check
A very open, longer ground distance third? check
A single-entrance, short air distance third? check
Half-bases in middle to potentially shorten attack distance? check
A base with two entrances, one essentially covered by a previous base, the other leading directly into the center? check
Each player gets a watch tower? check
Proper ground vs air duality? check
Low CS? check
Overall features creating a unique style for an otherwise old category? check.

(btw I don't really do a checklist like this to see if I like a map lol, just pointing out things I like that properly add to it's concept)

--

+ Show Spoiler +

This area should be far more open IMO.

---

---

Looks like a really nice, solid map. The one thing I don't like so much is the very top middle part. The only real purpose of it seems to be to avoid the XWT vision with big armies. If it was high ground it'd make more sense to go though there imo. Also I'm not sure if that small harass entrance into the nat really is that fun. Kinda ruins Forge FE's.

---

---

On February 08 2012 08:18 FlaShFTW wrote:
great map. though i feel as if you should take out the top two bases and make it one middle on at the top

---

---

On February 08 2012 09:32 a176 wrote:
is there a specific use for the rocks in the middle aside from delaying rushing a bit?

---

---

On February 08 2012 18:32 ihasaKAROT wrote:
The third seems weird. Sorta a deadend thing, if you let it sit he gets econ, if you go to attack it you are stuck. Damned if you do , damned if you dont...

---

---

On February 09 2012 02:43 SidianTheBard wrote:
Ya know, first glance I loved the third (the closer to your opponent third) yet after thinking about it, and seeing what Karot said, I kind of agree that it does seem kind of weird imo. You said it's extremely vulnerable to air assaults but that's not really true. The minerals are up against your main and with a turret or two on the side close to your opponent you'll be safe to drops. I'd almost say expanding vertically is more vulnerable to ground & air assaults due to the fact you'd have to put more Anti-Air to defend the verticle third as well as it's farther away from your other bases so it'd take ground units much longer to get there to defend.

I could see if you flipped the minerals to face the other way, so the back of the mineral line is facing your opponent, but then they might be too close to each other. Wouldn't want tanks to be able to hit them from the middle etc etc. I'm wondering if you rotate the minerals about 45 degrees so the back of the minerals are exposed to the bottom of the map. I would draw a picture with what I mean but I'm at work atm and really can't haha.

Aesthetics on this map are A+. Didn't you say in your texture video you probably weren't going to make this map a melee map because it had too many "custom" things in it? What changed your mind? Or is this a different map?

---