EPTOn February 28 2011 20:19 NullCurrent wrote:
A few quick questions and suggestions:
A few quick questions and suggestions:
- The minerals at the in-base natural seem to be very oddly placed. There isn't much space around it to protect it (or is that intentional?)
- The highground behind the in-base natural seems to be pathable, is that intended? It might be hard to defend cliff harass as you can't do much from the main cliff, it will be hard enough to protect from normal drops as it is a small ramp to it.
the cliff at the in-base natural was added last minute. I think drops are fun to make/defend/watch.
thinking about it now, it might work better if it was connected to the main at some small point. I will also rework it to have more space at minerals. (think there was some space lost while repositioning several parts of the map after some discussion with dezi)
On February 28 2011 20:19 NullCurrent wrote:
A few quick questions and suggestions:
A few quick questions and suggestions:
- Gold bases might be a bit easy to hold as it is placed against the wall of the main.
- I think the center of the map is quite fine, the rocks are a good addition as it will allow easier flanking in the late game.
- I think the XWT placement is fine, it reveals a quite large part of the map, yet it still allows for counter attacks. Maybe move the towers a bit towards the rocks in the middle so the towers won't scout a counter attack if it is moved appropriately (ie. make the towers cover only a part of the middle path each, not the whole as it is now).
i guess these points are connected. First let me explain the idea behind the layout. I wanted to grant the option for a save third and more defensive, macro oriented strategy, but at the same time give a more aggressive player the chance to expand forward early on. If player1 expands on the rather save plateau on the one side, player2 could decide to take map control in the actual centre and get both expansions on low ground. In an earlier version I even tested a very similar layout with two highyield expansions on lowground. The idea is that one should be at least able to expand main-nat a.k.a. third-gold and leave the in-base natural away for example.
It takes only one creeptumor to connect the main with the nat a.k.a. third and two more to connect with gold/low ground or mid ground fourth/fifth expansion. That means there are a lot of options expansionwise and this is the reason why the design is so compact an the gold is so close to one's main.
-> do you think the opening at the DRs should be bigger? (4x4, not 6x6 at the moment)
moving the xwt does not work that great. i tried around a lot. the only options i see is one XWT in the middle or two really crazy different ones at the outer borders that help attacks from the sides into the ground expansions.
On February 28 2011 20:19 NullCurrent wrote:
A few quick questions and suggestions:
A few quick questions and suggestions:
- Maybe make the cliff between the natural and gold a bit longer to allow reapers to approach from a different angle.
- Why all the pathable cliffs next to the expansions? Seems like siege tank harass will be a staple tactic for terran on this map (how much of the natural (marked in the summary as third) is covered by the siege tank on the cliff next to the backdoor?)
good point on the cliff there. two reaper entrances will be lovely.
the cliff at the in-main nat will be changed, the only real cliff remaining will be at the fourth.
i tried around with tank lines at different positions and angles between nat("third") and fourth, but did not test the cliff there tbh. i think i wanted to make it unpathable, but it might be intersting. from looking at the analyzer pic i am pretty sure the nat is save from this cliff, though. I did not built it to be used against the expansion there, rather as a defensive position for a siege cliff drop that covers the front door between nat and fourth.
thanks a lot for your input, i appreciate it!
