| 1 |
[quote]sc style
|
1 |
[quote]sc style
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
in hindsight it's pretty obvious that sc would have arrived at a good mapping paradigm given it was the dominant hardcore competitive rts for the last 20 years [/quote]
|
3 |
in hindsight it's pretty obvious that sc would have arrived at a good mapping paradigm given it was the dominant hardcore competitive rts for the last 20 years [/quote]
|
| 4 |
I don't know that it necessarily arrived there so much as started in the only place it could, which happened to be good; SC is a quite different game and inherently has less map variety than ZK on a macro scale (limited and discrete heights, much more discrete resources, etc.)
|
4 |
I don't know that it necessarily arrived there so much as started in the only place it could, which happened to be good; SC is a quite different game and inherently has less map variety than ZK on a macro scale (limited and discrete heights, much more discrete resources, etc.)
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
For that matter, the fundamental principle of Starcraft maps we're referring to (mostly flat, some chokepoints and ramps) haven't changed much in 18 years - look at Lost Temple.
|
6 |
For that matter, the fundamental principle of Starcraft maps we're referring to (mostly flat, some chokepoints and ramps) haven't changed much in 18 years - look at Lost Temple.
|
|
|
7 |
\n
|
|
|
8 |
---//---
|
|
|
9 |
\n
|
|
|
10 |
I agree that there is a trend towards the mostly-flat maps being the most enjoyable to play on. There are exceptions - for instance I like Badlands, Obsidian and Intersection - but TitanDuel is (I believe) the most !mapped map for a reason.
|
Good ZK Maps