[Map] Valkyrion

On September 03 2009 14:05 LeoTheLion wrote:
this map is really cool. here are some comments:

along with post above: maybe the chrysalis would be better off on the nat side of the bridge? that way forge fe may be easier

it also looks kind of like pvt hell. if terran sieges around the middle it looks like they can hit a lot of shit. maybe semi wall at one of the mid locations? seems to easily secure 3rd and maybe even 4th.

On September 03 2009 14:06 Mystlord wrote:
In addition to the comments above, there's a lot of minerals inside your main/natural/mineral only. Like a lot. By the way... The ridge above 1/7 expos... What's the point?

On September 03 2009 14:26 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
Lol how are you gonna break a contain outside your natural? they can place i.e. tanks on the cliff expo and just contain the whole small choke there.

On September 03 2009 14:08 Jenia6109 wrote:
This map looks cool but i think there's big TvP imba (T>P) on it

On September 03 2009 14:53 randombum wrote:
Seems like this would be terran awesomeness. He can get 4 bases off one choke (albeit he can't turret it too well. And if he secures those 4 the next two can easily also be held by 1 choke. (A few supplies to wall, and takes lined up with the cliff protecting the 12(centerish) expo

Then in Tvz, 1 set of turrets can cover the nat and half the main's minerals. And if nat/main is tankable that's even more in favor of terran.

And that middle ground looks kinda small, so impossible to flank, and looks really hard to counter.

On the other hand, it looks really cool and I'd play some games on it with anybody if they want.

On September 03 2009 22:07 StarBrift wrote:
You shoujld consider moving mineral line a few hexes from the ridge unless you want this to be a 2hatch muta > terran map. Close ridge is fine on maps like Medusa, HBR and Outsider where you can actually get up there relatively fast with your units. As it is now you have to have half your army up there until you get mass turrets.

On September 03 2009 23:34 Nikoner wrote:
Then the download must be corrupted because I don't get a second slot when I want to start a game on the map -.-;;

On September 04 2009 03:35 neobowman wrote:
.... No freakin way Protoss will be able to beat Terran camping in the middle. Concept won't work. Scratch map, make a new one.

On September 04 2009 03:43 Chill wrote:

I like your optimism, LOL.

On September 04 2009 03:50 neobowman wrote:

Well, you can't make a map good only with execution if the concept doesn't work at all. Might as well start a new map altogether than wasting time trying to balance a concept that doesn't make work.

On September 04 2009 03:52 Chill wrote:

To contrast this, I actually think the map looks rather balanced and the center is open and dynamic enough that camping there won't work. The center is wide enough that Protoss can break through one side and move around the center. Blue Storm is relatively balanced and the center favours defense much more than this map. Further, Arbiters look to be extremely powerful on this map.

Great map in my opinion.

On September 04 2009 04:27 neobowman wrote:


On the contrary, the centre is tight. Using scmdraft to compare, Blue storm's centre is around 19 pylons wide. This centre is 9 pylons wide, the choke is about as tight as Destination's 3rd expo's choke (the third expo clockwise to the main) Taking half of the map then turreting and mining up will make arbiters less useful really.

Edit: I do praise Kona though for making the terrain show where to put buildings.

On September 04 2009 05:22 Chill wrote:

And the highest ground on Blue Storm is a similar distance, except this map is flat, not running up two hills.

On September 04 2009 05:40 Shikyo wrote:

There are paths around the high ground in BS. Here it seems like you can put 1 tank in the middle of the choke and it could shoot at any unit trying to come accross the center.

On September 04 2009 06:38 konadora wrote:

Not sure about that lol, but I definitely widened the mid after updating the first version. Can't find any more means to make it wider :<

On September 04 2009 06:36 neobowman wrote:
My analysis because people seem intent on saying the map is good

PvT:
Camping is bad just because centre is unbuildable? Not the case at all. If you can hold the centre, you have half the map so the Terran can just concentrate all their forces there without fear of a flank. Goliaths can counter shuttles and just comsat or a science vessal later on for detection. Vultures will do enough blocking. Even if Terran doesn't hold centre, he can just take 4 easy bases and push out 200/200 3/3 and Protoss won't be able to stop it. Protoss can do nothing on this map if Terran plays well. Rushes are stopped because of long distance between bases and a 13 nex will improve the position temporarily but a Terran will be able to catch up just as quickly because it's so easy to get bases.

PvZ:
Same problem as PvT. Protoss can get many easy bases and Zerg has to counter with harass but if Protoss holds middle, it'll be easy to defend. Drops could be a problem but if Protoss keeps them in mind, then they won't be able to do too much. 4th gas for Zerg is very hard to obtain while 3rd gas for protoss is oh so easy to defend once you add cannons. Add reavers and templar too, and Zerg is toast.

TvZ:
Mech build. Hold middle. Zerg can do nothing. Air=Valkyries/Science Vessals, mine up middle and nothing will be able to get through that, the line of tanks and goliaths. I may be underestimating Zerg in this matchup a bit but I do believe it will be Terran favoured.

If some of the better players here can do some testing with the strategies I've outlined, it would be much appreciated.

Edit: If you want to know why it's so tight, there's wasted space all over the map. Water at the 12 and 6, the expos at 7 and 1 have far too much space, there is a big load of nothing right outside of the natural and the backdoor main path takes too much for too little. It would be better if directed towards the top and bottem of the map instead of the left and right.

On September 04 2009 06:41 neobowman wrote:


I would say scrap this map and start anew. You can do much much better than this.

On September 05 2009 05:43 Grobyc wrote:
When I get back from downtown in a couple hours, I wouldn't mind trying it out again. Anyone up for it?

On September 05 2009 11:00 neobowman wrote:
It's improved but I'd still say it's not that good because the concept just doesn't work imo. Nightmarjoo gave up on the map a while ago.