i bet i didn't notice something facepalmingly obvious, i just have a feeling

lol

main size

tightness of map in addition to surplus of gas, further accuntuated by it being easy to get

linearity

z>t p>z t>p badly, imo.


suggestions

make nats smaller and mains bigger

take gas away from 3rd base, put it in the middle expos

um I'd suggest removing the tar in middle, but then the map would be t>z, p>t z>p badly, imo haha. Maybe put a hole in the tar to help mobility a bit and reduce linearity.

use testbug ramps (spinel valley iii)



overall:

work on sizes, distances, and shapes, and I'd reccomend against using 128x96 :O

not bad, btw, for like your 3rd map lol.

what's bad about 128x96 specifically? :o

they're small

also there isnt a single map thats balanced in 128x96

That is not true! There r enough good balanced 128*96 maps;even for 4 players.Don't you remember Grief's map Embryo?

There is nothing wrong with this size.

Add 2 larger bridges after the nat(GMCS),so that the map will have more routes to allow z/p to flank.Execution wise it is low indeed

that map isnt balanced

spinel valley probably the closest to good map in this map size t.t

Obviously,you don't know what balance means.Embryo is 100% balanced,and btw that is great for a 4 player map on this size;you won't find many,perhaps that is why you believe so.But for 2 players there are other too,like RoV,Blue Storm

Idk what is this discussion at all.It is no big deal,and never was to balance a map on 128*96.At least not 2 player maps

modified by Johnny B.Goode

well blue storm seems mostly balanced, there are some issues that could use some work, but for the most part it's not bad

Your comment

Your comment