Staredit Network > Forums > SC1 Melee Map Projects > Topic: Renamed; (2) Power Struggle
Renamed; (2) Power Struggle
Dec 8 2009, 11:04 pm
By: Marine  

Dec 16 2009, 11:36 pm Marine Post #21





So like this? Once the expo is moved to the red circle, fill in the blue circle with cliff? Tankable or non-tankable? I imagine non..?

EDIT: @zany: I have been told to do so, please do NOT repeat advice I am already doing, read previous posts so you don't repeat repeat repeat repeat! :><:



None.

Dec 16 2009, 11:37 pm Excalibur Post #22

The sword and the faith

Not the entire circle but thicken it. Yes its for tanking.

And use these ramps:
http://www.panschk.de/mappage/comments.php?mapid=3793




SEN Global Moderator and Resident Zealot
-------------------------
The sword and the faith.

:ex:
Sector 12
My stream, live PC building and tech discussion.

Dec 16 2009, 11:38 pm Marine Post #23



I did use those ramps in my map, but do you mean use the ramps FOR the extended cliff so you can go on them?



None.

Dec 16 2009, 11:40 pm Excalibur Post #24

The sword and the faith

Quote from Marine
I did use those ramps in my map, but do you mean use the ramps FOR the extended cliff so you can go on them?
That's not what the picture says.

Use the ramps made of both dirt and snow. You're using the wrong kind. None of your ramps should be metal. Look at this map:
http://www.panschk.de/mappage/Artificial%20IMG.jpg




SEN Global Moderator and Resident Zealot
-------------------------
The sword and the faith.

:ex:
Sector 12
My stream, live PC building and tech discussion.

Dec 17 2009, 12:46 am Marine Post #25



Edited the map; darkened EVERYTHING and modified the terrain a bit. Replaced the ramps, made them dirt ramps now.





None.

Dec 17 2009, 9:48 pm Super Duper Post #26



Whoa nellie - Thats a lot of tessellated high ground.



None.

Dec 17 2009, 10:49 pm BeDazed Post #27



I think the mid would be fine, without ANY of those. It's not 'too' open. It can never be 'too open' with that 'narrow' nat entrance.



None.

Dec 24 2009, 10:02 pm Decency Post #28



Looks very well done and a lot of fun. A few complaints: for the 9 o'clock, the small secondary entrance is clear, whereas the 3 o'clock has a tree in the way. That might screw up reavers or tanks or something. Also, the northern natural has a shitty geyser placement, although it's protected. The southern natural has a good placement, but it's very vulnerable. Make those both the same in both aspects, for balance. Also, the mineral lines at both naturals are very vulnerable to mutalisk harass. Add in some space for turrets, cannons, bunkers, etc.



None.

Options
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[02:28 am]
Symmetry -- :wob:
[02:26 am]
Apos -- :wob:
[09:16 am]
NimoStar -- ever wanted to play melee in installation tileset? Now you can https://staredit.net/topic/18929/
[2026-9-11. : 2:29 am]
Symmetry -- TFW you google a problem and find the answer in a post you made yourself
[2026-9-11. : 1:46 am]
Oh_Man -- How can i change my name here to put [TFE] on the end will thr website let me
[2026-9-10. : 6:02 pm]
Zoan -- of course it isn't full understanding. You could ask "is the mechanism by which this counterexample blows up the ONLY mechanism possible for an initial configuration to blow up?"
[2026-9-10. : 5:48 pm]
Zoan -- ppl do it all the time in PDEs
[2026-9-10. : 5:47 pm]
Zoan -- Heinermann
Heinermann shouted: it also didn't solve that problem but hey as long as the investors are pleased
Constructing a counterexample is answering the question: "Is Navier Stokes well posed?" in the negative
[2026-9-10. : 5:44 pm]
NudeRaider -- I only heard about it, didn't any news article, so what did it do then?
[2026-9-10. : 5:43 pm]
Heinermann -- it also didn't solve that problem but hey as long as the investors are pleased
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Zycorax, lifebot