[M] (4) Shurik'n

On May 14 2011 10:54 zJayy962 wrote:
If you remove the little peninsula like things jutting out from the middle high ground and make the golds on the low ground, I think that area would be "high risk" and take some real dedication to hold.

Map looks awesome by the way.

Questions:
Can tanks on the low ground tucked next to the mains attack onto the path leading to the natural? This could cause for potential imbalance.

Would this be MLG style where you wouldn't be able to spawn close positions?

On May 14 2011 14:24 BLinD-RawR wrote:
hmmm I don't like that long choke into the naturals,its just too long,

On May 14 2011 15:30 IronManSC wrote:
Shorten the chokes into the natural.

Re-work the center high ground. It's "too open." Mabye some barriers or holes in the ground or something. Other than that it's a nice layout. Reminds me of a mixture between Shakuras Plateau and Shattered Temple.

On August 04 2011 08:58 Phried wrote:
Very nice looking, but it looks pretty T imba (lot's of cliffs and chokes = tank rampage). Is that just me?

On August 04 2011 09:43 Chargelot wrote:


I guess an open, single-level, perfectly square field would be better.

Tank positioning is extremely situational, and is often very fragile. looking at chokes/cliffs/ramps and yelling "tanks are imba" is not at all different from looking at any piece of land and saying "burrowed banelings would be imba here."

On August 04 2011 09:50 Phried wrote:


If you say so. I just think Z players will have a tough time in the centre area. Also to mention it looks as though one can hit the mineral line from the third base with tanks which could be pretty bad.

On August 04 2011 10:07 Chargelot wrote:


(if you mean the center expansions) The thing is, that would be a fourth for most sane Zerg players. Typically, we'd be speaking about a base that wouldn't be up and operational until the midgame to endgame transition, when the Zerg player is going for mass Broodlords. It would balance out nicely.

(if you mean the distal thirds) I can see if Terran spawns one base clockwise of Zerg, he would be able to siege in his main and hit the third. This should be fixed by enforcing spawn locations. Sorry for missing this earlier.

On August 04 2011 23:39 DashedHopes wrote:
LOL bro this looks so much like crevasse

On August 04 2011 23:23 Chargelot wrote:
The other sides were pretty much the same story. The tanks on their own can't actually hit anything. In theory, a few corrupters could easily hold off the air units required to give vision to these tanks. It's important to remember this is a fourth base, and the position leaves the Terran player extremely open to Broodlords. Simply because of how cliffy this map is, a mutalisk composition would already be the weapon of choice for most ZvT games, so it's not unreasonable to say Broodlords (even a couple) will be around by the time Terran is sieging the fourth base.

The only thing I don't like is how Terran can siege up inside their own main, and deny the third of a counter-clockwise player.

On August 05 2011 01:48 a176 wrote:


Hi, thanks for your insight. The other user is right in his Crevasse comparison, there is some influence. But my map differs in that its wildly easier to navigate around/circumvent the middle. The area-of-influence for these paths can be changed with further playtesting, of course.

Indeed, through the many games I've watched on Crevasse, it frustrated me to see only a few games with flanking on a map that looked prime for it. As a zerg player myself, all the way back from BW, I wanted to punish zerg players who ignored map control. My map has many veins of opportunity for flanking but refusing to spread creep and having vision will hurt you in the long run. Look no further for inspiration than recent DRG or seal games to appreciate the power of an extremely mobile zerg army.

As for the third, there's no reason you are forced to expand in that direction. Indeed, in the situation of players spawning next to each other (say the 10 and 2 oclock spawns), the two inbetween bases (player 1's third, player 2's fourth) become the most volatile. That's to say, I haven't seen to many issues with a player making the fourth his third in the games I've played so far.



Thanks again.

Primary problem I see is that a terran sieged up on the edges of the middle can deny almost every counter attack path to their base. Map seems really good for T really bad for Z.. The paths in general are very small and the middle can still easily be controlled by tanks.

Would like to see the pathing around the center expanded and possibly a high ground expansion near the middle.

On October 03 2011 09:26 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
I also prefer the version before :/

The high ground path in the middle seems so narrow now. If you really wanna keep it that way I'd probably remove the hole in the middle and make the center low ground a bit smaller, which would also widen those narrow paths a bit.

On October 03 2011 09:36 crbox wrote:
It's kind of a good map, but I don't really like maps with like 4 xel nagas in the middle. They cover way too much space, and also you can see your opponent move out from his natural with the tower, which is silly.

Great job overall

On October 03 2011 09:43 Antares777 wrote:
Either the ramps into the middle need to be enlarged or the circular high ground paths need to be widened. A player has the options to pick one or the other path, but both have chokes. Other than that this is a solid map, besides roational imbalances, of course.

On October 03 2011 10:02 totalpigeon wrote:
Can the XWT be easily cleared from the neighbouring high ground by stalkers/marauders? Hard to tell from the overview, but I think that would effectively address any problems with being scouted when moving out.

On October 03 2011 09:51 a176 wrote:


yea, i think i made the ramps too small from the previous version, its updated now. but the bypass width will remain small; any larger and it becomes redundant, and players will not bother to use the wider rock'd path to get around.