On December 15 2008 11:57 Aurious wrote:
Wasn't something like this supposed to have been used about a year ago?

That or something like it maybe for 2v2?

Perhaps you are thinking of the map Sword in the Moon, which the community eventually decided to call Harmony. I think it had something to do with multiple translations.

bubblegumbo

Taiwan1296 Posts

December 15 2008 22:27 GMT

#82

Can't wait to see ZvP on this map.

MamiyaOtaru

United States1687 Posts

December 16 2008 00:38 GMT

#83

On December 16 2008 04:03 Shauni wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think it's die in a giant fire

Die in a gotdamn fire?

sixghost

United States2096 Posts

December 16 2008 00:45 GMT

#84

On December 16 2008 05:40 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
wow, 10 is really really small inbase, protoss could have problems here

There's a ton of space toward the top of the base though. I think that equals it out.

Signet

United States1718 Posts

December 16 2008 00:48 GMT

#85

On December 16 2008 09:45 lgdDante wrote:

Show nested quote +

There's a ton of space toward the top of the base though. I think that equals it out.

Yeah these bases all look huge imo. Should fit all of the buildings P could need... even without taking into account that this map has less resources than many.

firedodo

China116 Posts

December 16 2008 00:58 GMT

#86

Nice name & nice look. But 3 twilights in 4 maps OMFG... Am I going to see ICE in my life again?

firedodo

China116 Posts

December 16 2008 01:00 GMT

#87

Also this map LACKS mineral... and calls for multiple expansions
Not bad for Zergs, ha

OmgIRok

Taiwan2699 Posts

December 16 2008 01:22 GMT

#88

FE is still possible... maybe you guys have forgotten about 2gate expo! with gates in the nat ^^

MisterKatosS

France352 Posts

December 16 2008 01:34 GMT

#89

http://www.deezer.com/track/6906

thunk

United States6233 Posts

December 16 2008 02:37 GMT

#90

On December 15 2008 22:06 Plexa wrote:
This will end up being Zerg favored vs P imo

sooo many routes to the natural

I was actually going to argue this too, but not for that reason. It's cause OGN zergs tested it, meaning ZvT will be impossible (OGN zergs ZvT really good -> map really hard for other teams' ZvT) while their ZvP is going to be really easy (OGN zergs ZvP really bad -> map really easy for other teams' ZvP). It was hard to write that eloquently and it's not very witty either.

Empyrean

16978 Posts

December 16 2008 02:41 GMT

#91

To be fair, I think this'll be a reversion to the old 1 base Protoss vs. 2 base Zerg style. Keep in mind that a nat that's hard to defend with static defense also disadvantages Zerg, especially in ZvT. Remember that cute attack on RoV that someone did a while back (sorry I forget...he basically mined the minerals and sent in MM)? That's entirely possible now, except you won't have to wait to mine the minerals either. Setting up a Sunken Line will also be difficult.

EDIT: Also, it looks like in TvP, if Terran controls the third (the one on the high ground), with mech, then he also easily defends the fourth (the low ground one separated from the nat).

And diagf means die in a grease fire.

blabber

United States4448 Posts

December 16 2008 02:53 GMT

#92

nah I'm sure the pros will come up with some insane forge/gateway/cannon placement that effectively blocks both entrances to the natural

ilistis

United States828 Posts

December 16 2008 02:56 GMT

#93

On December 16 2008 11:53 blabber wrote:
nah I'm sure the pros will come up with some insane forge/gateway/cannon placement that effectively blocks both entrances to the natural

I'm thinking the plyon is going to be in the middle.

Then again, it looks like a long path for lings but those little buggers are pretty fast.

Ugh, I guess I'll have to watch the pros.

Vasoline73

United States7801 Posts

December 16 2008 02:57 GMT

#94

On December 15 2008 22:10 thedeadhaji wrote:
noooo plasma

i wish they tried to make Plasma II

Agreed! I liked Plasma alot even though it was imba

Dgtl

Canada889 Posts

December 16 2008 03:07 GMT

#95

I could see carriers on this map. Those narrow passages seems good for carrier micro. Though the open middle doesn't look too good for carriers.

barth

Ireland1272 Posts

December 16 2008 11:19 GMT

#96

I think its possible for Protoss to FE getting 3 cannons and 2 probes on the ramp...

TheTyranid

Russian Federation4333 Posts

December 16 2008 11:25 GMT

#97

wrong thread

SilverSkyLark

Philippines8437 Posts

December 16 2008 11:51 GMT

#98

wow, uhh, big mains *looks for places to proxy*

-I like how the natural can be "flanked", which is practically impossible in most maps.
-The 6 main looks kinda small
-Nat is siegeable.
-Looks kinda hard to Forge Expand here, since lings can get in two angles.
-I like how the 3rd can "secure" a fourth min only. Ok nevermind, 4 patches only, but at least the 3rd has a gas, 3 gas = happy Protoss.

SilverSkyLark

Philippines8437 Posts

December 16 2008 12:18 GMT

#99

On December 16 2008 11:56 ilistis wrote:

Show nested quote +

I'm thinking the plyon is going to be in the middle.

Then again, it looks like a long path for lings but those little buggers are pretty fast.

Ugh, I guess I'll have to watch the pros.

hmm, yeah I forgot to consider the distances between mains..oh wait, they're not that far actually.

A 9-pool may force the Toss to go 2 cannons before gateway, therefore, forcing the Protoss to delay the gateway.

Oh wait, I think I found an area where a pylon forge double cannon can be placed even if the lings come from one side. I'm still visualizing though on the scenario if speedlings come in from 2 sides, maybe blocking the ramp with 3-5 probes will do...

I think 12 hatch will be easy, cuz if a gateway is placed in a way that it will delay the lings even if they flank, it will make the lings run a greater distance. By that time, the group of lings that came from one side might be dead already and the cannon is sitting pretty to kill the ones who took a detour....

Not sure though