My idea behind this two-player map is to use a standard expansion layout, but encourage some unusual gameplay. Each player can get up to five expansions, but they are slightly more spread out than on most competitive maps. To compensate, the choke sizes are smaller which makes defending the expos easier. The center of the map is lowground and the towers promote moving around the outside of the map in the mid to late game. Army positioning, harassment, and map control all play a big role in determining the outcome of the game.
Overview (Updated 12/21/11):
Numbers # of Players: 2 Playable Bounds: 126x132 Tileset: Korhal Main to Main: 44s Natural to Natural: 37s
The map is currently uploaded to the NA server under the name "ESV Korhal Compound by monitor" and "TLMC Korhal Compound". Feedback is greatly appreciated.
Changelog 1.6 -Removed doodads in center to encourage moving through middle -Changed cliffs to Port Zion Manmade so the main ramp appears to be 1 forcefield wide -Changed lighting to BelShir to be easier on the eyes -Added rocks to part of the ramp to the fifth to make it easier to defend Resources:
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
On October 02 2011 07:53 neobowman wrote: Terrible. Go back to Africa. + Show Spoiler +
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
Lol what?
I agree that the mains are a bit awkward now. I think they might actually be a little bit too small. If so, I think I'll extend the horizontal map borders and increase the size of the main a little bit which will also give more dropping room along the sides.
On October 02 2011 07:53 neobowman wrote: Terrible. Go back to Africa. + Show Spoiler +
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
Lol what?
I agree that the mains are a bit awkward now. I think they might actually be a little bit too small. If so, I think I'll extend the horizontal map borders and increase the size of the main a little bit which will also give more dropping room along the sides.
If you increase the width to fix the mains, I would also widen the side paths a little bit. You say you want circular army movement, but those paths are a bit narrow for a max supply army. Those paths are used later in the game, and fought at later in the game, so I would provide more space in light of that. I applaud the proportions use in such a map with such small dimensions.
The first thing I thought was that the towers are so hard to push into from mid. I guess that's the point but... it seems like most of the time they are a forgone conclusion for both players on their side, simply providing warning of an army moving in for an attack as opposed to being an asset in contention. Obviously maps have different styles for the towers and this is okay but it seems undynamic to me.
On October 02 2011 07:53 neobowman wrote: Terrible. Go back to Africa. + Show Spoiler +
Jk, I really like it. Mains look just a tad bit awkward to place buildings. I'd think about moving the start locatiosn closer to the corners so you have more space to place buildings.
Lol what?
I agree that the mains are a bit awkward now. I think they might actually be a little bit too small. If so, I think I'll extend the horizontal map borders and increase the size of the main a little bit which will also give more dropping room along the sides.
If you increase the width to fix the mains, I would also widen the side paths a little bit. You say you want circular army movement, but those paths are a bit narrow for a max supply army. Those paths are used later in the game, and fought at later in the game, so I would provide more space in light of that. I applaud the proportions use in such a map with such small dimensions.
The first thing I thought was that the towers are so hard to push into from mid. I guess that's the point but... it seems like most of the time they are a forgone conclusion for both players on their side, simply providing warning of an army moving in for an attack as opposed to being an asset in contention. Obviously maps have different styles for the towers and this is okay but it seems undynamic to me.
Good point, but I think the side is big enough for a 200/200 army to move through, but not engage in. My original hopes were that you'd really only defend the gold there- if you want to engage, you'd attack into the natural or fourth instead of there. The side is still used a lot for harassment and 2-3base fights (and reinforcing). I think it will probably be okay right now, but if the issue comes up in more test games I'll definitely change it.
Note: I also want to avoid making the paths too "homogeneous" throughout the map.
Main - Nat - 3rd - 4th is some of the best expansion flow I've seen. I absolutely love it. For some reason I don't care for where the golds are though. I'll think about it and post sometime later when I think of a suggestion. Overall, great map though bud, keep it up!
No offense but... it's boring, isn't it? The base arrangement is so straightforward, there's very little room for harassment, and the middle is open with a couple of high grounds thrown in to break it up. It certainly looks nice, as all your maps do, but as far as game play it's just completely boring. It really reminds me of a Blizzard map, minus a couple of rocks and other gimmicks. It's probably well balanced, but it's just bland.
I agree that it is somewhat boring right now. I suppose I wasn't intending to do anything really fancy yet- I might make some minor adjustments on this to increase harass. I'll work on something very new for my next one though.
Very nice standard expo layout, just very well done. I really like the middle and the aesthetics are awesome.
No pic of the tower range makes me sad.
That contrast with the grass seems a bit much tho. Like the grass is sooo green and I think it's a bit much. Maybe you could lighten it up with a brighter grass texture or foliage or whatever?!
Looking forward to this being played and submitted for the TL contest. Also good to hear that you work on something more creative after this solid map (:
Some comments mentions it as a boring/bland map. I personally find it to be intreseting map with the flow of the expansions (third into fourth). Also a bland/boring map isn't equal to bad, every map doesn't need to be full of new and creative features.
The only problem that i can see from the overview is the rather small main combined with a large part being siegeable from the lowground. I guess it's not a huge problem since it "works" on xel'naga caverns but something i think should be kept to a smaller area rather then the entire main.
Looking forward to some awesome matches on it in the weeklies.
It seems that it would be very dynamic with the multiple paths.
The centre of the map appears a little small and I think may make it difficult for zerg to engage perhaps forcing zerg players to play more counterattack heavy and limiting the effectiveness of other options but I haven't seen the map in game yet so I couldn't say for sure. A solution may be to make the open spaces more open because the map right now seems to be almost all the same openness which may not put as much emphasis on positioning as a more varied map would.
On October 04 2011 07:01 Callynn wrote: This map looks very intense, it reminds me of quicksand.
Thanks! I guess that's a good thing?
On October 04 2011 10:37 NuclearWINtr wrote: It seems that it would be very dynamic with the multiple paths.
The centre of the map appears a little small and I think may make it difficult for zerg to engage perhaps forcing zerg players to play more counterattack heavy and limiting the effectiveness of other options but I haven't seen the map in game yet so I couldn't say for sure. A solution may be to make the open spaces more open because the map right now seems to be almost all the same openness which may not put as much emphasis on positioning as a more varied map would.
All in all a great concept and aesthetics.
True, a lot of the map is similarly choked. I think there are some good open spaces in the "outer-ring", with some key chokes along the outside. You might be right, but there hasn't been this imbalance from the testing so far. I'll keep an eye out though!
On October 04 2011 10:37 NuclearWINtr wrote: It seems that it would be very dynamic with the multiple paths.
The centre of the map appears a little small and I think may make it difficult for zerg to engage perhaps forcing zerg players to play more counterattack heavy and limiting the effectiveness of other options but I haven't seen the map in game yet so I couldn't say for sure. A solution may be to make the open spaces more open because the map right now seems to be almost all the same openness which may not put as much emphasis on positioning as a more varied map would.
All in all a great concept and aesthetics.
True, a lot of the map is similarly choked. I think there are some good open spaces in the "outer-ring", with some key chokes along the outside. You might be right, but there hasn't been this imbalance from the testing so far. I'll keep an eye out though!
I was thinking more of a limited set of play styles as zerg and less of overall balance as the chokes balance out the multiple paths quite well leaving a lot of play styles available as toss and terran, i.e. bio, zealot templar, colossus, mech etc., but not quite as many as zerg due to the difficulty of setting up a strong position outside as a defensive zerg e.g. a concave on top of a wide ramp a la tal darim. You stated that these chokes were part of your concept and I don't see how one would change this without affecting the way the other two races would have to play. Of course, a variation in the chokes around the map would help let zergs figure out "okay, I'm going to counterattack while I set the rest of my army here".
I really hope I don't sound too critical because I really like the map as a whole as it is one of the the best executions of the "circular army movement" concept I've seen (much better than desert oasis :D) and love the aesthetics too (reminds me a lot of some brood war maps).
On November 13 2011 04:42 dezi wrote: I like its retexturing - simple and nice to the eye ^^
Thanks! I hope it turns out well in-game too.
On November 13 2011 05:02 Modernist wrote: I think there should be rocks on the ramp between the 3rd and 4th to help PvZ/TvZ.
That's an interesting point, I'll have to think about it. Right now Protoss/Terran can wall off the choke between the third and fourth on lowground with two gateways and a pylon though, which should shut down most of the aggression from that angle.
Didn't the 5th base move into the hollow between the main and highground for Daggoth Crater (becoming an alternate 3rd)? That's a very different layout. What's going on here?! XD
On November 13 2011 05:21 EatThePath wrote: Didn't the 5th base move into the hollow between the main and highground for Daggoth Crater (becoming an alternate 3rd)? That's a very different layout. What's going on here?! XD
Yes that base has changed. The problem was that it was almost useless, because it was too far from the natural to be taken as a third or fourth, but it couldn't be taken as a fifth because it was too close to the opponent's fourth base.
Changelog 1.6 -Removed doodads in center to encourage moving through middle -Changed cliffs to Port Zion Manmade so the main ramp appears to be 1 forcefield wide -Changed lighting to BelShir to be easier on the eyes -Added rocks to part of the ramp to the fifth to make it easier to defend
Yeah, glad KC is going to be in the ladder pool. This is what i wrote up waaaay back during the TLMC Voting thread about KC. I liked it a lot back then and I still like it a lot now.
Map Rank: 2nd Korhal Compound
I'm confused why this map is getting no love at all. The Main through 4th bases are probably one of the best expansions paths I've seen in a map. Not only are the 3rd and 4ths fairly easy to get, but they also open up many vulnerablities if you do end up taking them. You can easily punish players that take a too greedy third due to the lowground. When you take the 4th you have to worry about the highground right behind you. It's awesome though because as for main attack paths when you get a 4th you really only have to watch two places, yet it also there are tons of opportunities for harass. Harass = Good. I haven't talked much about watchtowers yet, but this map has the best xel'naga watchtower placement of all the maps. It shows just enough. Basically having vision of the ramps in the middle is great, it makes the middle of the map more dangerous to walk through, although it's also the fastest way to your opponent. You can take a slower way around the outer edges of the map though and you won't get spotted. Now when playing, do you just go down the ramps into the middle only to get spotted so they have time to prepare, or do you take the extra 20 seconds to walk around the outside of the map to get to your opponent out of watchtower range. If it weren't for another ESV map, this one should have easily gotten 1st place.
On February 11 2012 17:11 Timmay wrote: I found a potential problem with the third base in PvZ:
Should it be that easy to cannon?
Thank you for pointing this out. It might be worth changing the minerals so it isn't possible- but right now there I'm not in a position to be making any changes to the LE version. It is possible that Blizzard will change it.
I played a bunch of games on this map last night. Loved it. The expansions flow nicely. The map rewards awareness and positional games. Macro games and more agressive games good. The look is easy on the eyes. Im excited to see it in the ladder!
I'm so excited that this is on ladder and that I'll have gotten a head start on playing it... also, the cannons aren't until the third right? That's not such a big deal, since it basically denies zerg from throwing down a crazy fast third, and that's only if they put cannons down... Regardless I like this map, and congrats again :D
On February 13 2012 11:05 Pocky52 wrote: Hey they published a new ladder version, 1.1, does anyone know what they changed?
I'm not sure if the bottom natural was 1hex more to wall from ramp-nexus than the top in 1.0, but it is 2gates for each spawn now. So maybe that was the fix? Other than that, I can't see anything.
On February 15 2012 11:33 RumbleBadger wrote: Funny... you can still see where blizz hasn't fixed the aesthetics in spots where they edited the terrain. That's strange.
Not to slight Blizz or anything, but check out searing crater and entombed valley, and just have a small look around.
Obviously, it won't ruin anyone's day on the ladder, but they don't appear to be paying much attention to aesthetic details these days. Shame, when Blistering Sands was very nicely detailed, by comparison.
Monitor: Huge congrats man! If anyone deserves the honor of having their work make it into the regular ladder, it's you. I know you put a huge amount of effort and thought into your maps.
I got to play a few games on it this evening. In TvP, given the space between expansions, it was pretty easy to deal good damage with drop play. I don't say that in a bad way, it's certainly a good change of pace from what is typical of blizzard maps, i.e. the protoss turtle to 3 bases, 3/3 upgrades and maxing before pushing out. TvZ, muta harass not properly guarded against can be quite devastating given the "empty" areas between expansions. Play has definitely been fun and encourages more "pro" style of play, meaning get off your ass and make drop play, runby's, and harassment happen. Lot's of fun!
Nownow, they had to "replace" Xel'naga, they couldn't possibly make it too easy to expo and they didn't even need rocks to fuck it up! But in all seriousness, I wish they would have just left the natural alone, like Plexa said, even just changing the nat changes the progression of the rest of the game... I'm guessing they didn't talk to you monitor about any of the changes they made? Like even a reason why they changed the natural?
On February 15 2012 13:07 Doz wrote: Monitor: Huge congrats man! If anyone deserves the honor of having their work make it into the regular ladder, it's you. I know you put a huge amount of effort and thought into your maps.
I got to play a few games on it this evening. In TvP, given the space between expansions, it was pretty easy to deal good damage with drop play. I don't say that in a bad way, it's certainly a good change of pace from what is typical of blizzard maps, i.e. the protoss turtle to 3 bases, 3/3 upgrades and maxing before pushing out. TvZ, muta harass not properly guarded against can be quite devastating given the "empty" areas between expansions. Play has definitely been fun and encourages more "pro" style of play, meaning get off your ass and make drop play, runby's, and harassment happen. Lot's of fun!
Keep up the hard work! You've earned this!
Wow, thank you!!
On February 15 2012 13:28 Pocky52 wrote: Nownow, they had to "replace" Xel'naga, they couldn't possibly make it too easy to expo and they didn't even need rocks to fuck it up! But in all seriousness, I wish they would have just left the natural alone, like Plexa said, even just changing the nat changes the progression of the rest of the game... I'm guessing they didn't talk to you monitor about any of the changes they made? Like even a reason why they changed the natural?
They didn't talk to me about the changes (or tell me the changes for that matter, I just found the changes by looking around the LE version), but I don't really mind. It is theirs now, and I'm honored that it is in ladder- even though I don't agree with their changes.
I think that they widened the natural so that four base Protoss/Terran was more vulnerable in their two chokes. Unfortunately it screws up the early game, so it isn't the best change. I would rather they widen the third or fourth entrance instead.
Just realized something interesting about this map... four bases is easier to defend than three. Allow me to explain:
For three bases, look at this pic. The attacker has to walk barely any further than the defender to attack different choke points. Plus the attacker can abuse the high ground overlooking the third. This puts the attacker on near equal footing with the defender, so timing attacks may be hard to defend on three bases (ie, a 6-gate might be rather strong against a zerg taking a fast third).
But now look at four bases: pic. The defender is still defending 2 chokes, each roughly the same size as on three bases, but now also has a bigger army. Also, the travel distances for both the attacker and the defender are nearly the same as before. The difference lies in two places: the defender now holds the high ground, and the defender now likely has the watch tower (vision) and therefore a decent amount of map control (also due to more central position). But the attacker likely won't take the shortest path possible from choke to choke, because the defender could easily see the army with the watchtower and attack it from the high ground. Thus the attacker will more likely go all the way around the central low ground (see black dotted line). This gives the defender more of an advantage.
So, in conclusion, holding four bases is just as easy, if not easier, than holding three.
Now what does that mean for the map? I don't really know... I'll have to think about it more... Some early thoughts though: allows zerg to macro up faster if they can get fourth very fast (although the slightly more difficult third might simply make this a trade off), protoss players can death ball on four bases instead of three (that's gonna be a helluva death ball), and terran can use PFs to easily defend the third/fourth (fourth covers the third entrance, so a PF at the fourth will be very strong).
Some fun stuff going on there. Can't wait to play this map on ladder. =D And like Doz said, you really deserve this, great work.
On February 15 2012 15:09 RumbleBadger wrote: Just realized something interesting about this map... four bases is easier to defend than three. Allow me to explain: -snip-
Doesn't really take into account more ground to cover against drops etc, but yeah I can see how that works. Just remember that the 4 base "defensive positions" are further away, so reinforcements will arrive later negating much of the defensive advantage.
I think this goes a little bit far to the extreme though (Also, didn't you tell me a long while back that bases protecting bases = a bad thing? :-P) Anyway I think the fourth base is a problem. In general its far too easy to protect four basess and comparatively much more difficult to hold 3 or 5.
The real issue I observed playing on this map on ladder was that its extremely easy to turtle mid to late game, but I'm not sure there are enough bases to take advantage of the map control you get against a turtling player.
That said its a breath of fresh air on the ladder, and is more fun than Blizzard's previous offerings.
Keep map control, and maintain control of the high ground above your third. I don't exactly play zerg, but I assume that means spread creep there and position your army in such a way you can easily defend or retake that area. Hell, you could even burrow banelings up there if you know its a go-to place for the terran army.
On February 16 2012 05:51 Aeceus wrote: how do you even win ZvT on this map? seems hard... any advice?
Have to drag it in to the late late late game and keep the terran contained to 4 bases, taking the other 6 yourself. Feed it into broodlords and find an opening to attack into. There is one deadspot behind the fourth you can use to morph in some broods and another outside the main.
Yeah, so I overstated that holding four bases is easier than three... but you have to admit that it's not much harder. If you have any semblance of map control (ie. army by the watchtower) then you can probably hold four pretty darn easily.
But like others have said, I didn't account for air coverage or anything.
Now is this a bad thing? Again, I can't say for sure... but as a zerg player I'd probably go for a fairly standard lair tech off two bases (pretty fast tier 2) and then expand off that tech. But instead of just taking a third, I'd probably try to take a third and then a fourth like right after that.
As far as taking the third in ZvT, it seems to be the 4queen late gas style is the way to go. Lets you brush off the threat of hellions/reapers on your 2base, and gives you serious creep spread - you must spread creep above and below the ledge of the 3rd in order to take it safely. I like making a macro hatchery before the third, really, just for the production. A strategy like Destiny's standard 2base infestor/ling into double expand at your 3rd and 4th works quite well.
ZVP: the main is pretty big. Do what looks standard (14p 16h) but sneak a drone in their main and proxy hatch(instead of quick 3rd).... proxy roaches before warpgate timing >_>
I had thought the middle of this map would be a no-mans land due to the low ground. In reality, going across the sides instead of the middle makes the aggressor more susceptible to counterattacks. This dynamic is what really makes the map for me :D.
I really like this map for overlord placement...very nice places to get scouting as a zerg. Wonderful map, I really like this when it comes up on ladder.
There is a small gap between the outer mineral and the gas that seems to be open, but actually you cant move any unit trough it.
It doesnt works with zealots or workers, maybe a zergling would fit trough i havent tested that yet.
I didn't found it thread worthy so i just searched for the thread of the map.
EDIT: After further testing it out it seems that the movement only gets blocked if you make a gas and zerglings cant move trough it either.
That's just how adjacent resources work, and the footprint of the geyser is different than the footprint of the various gas buildings. Corner to corner resources are different than corner to corner buildings in that they don't allow enough space for units to pass. It looks like otherwise sometimes. Not a bug just how the game is.
I will agree with it being really easy to go from 3->4
Heck, as a T I just throw a planetary and some turrets/a sensor tower down near the fourth (planetary goes next to the choke, but not where a normal CC would go) while I take my third. Much easier to defend from that position than having to actively defend from low ground.
This map is a ton of fun in any case~TvT is especially enjoyable :3
For reference, I'm high Masters P, and all my experiences with this map have come on NA ladder against top 10 Masters to top GM.
The #1 issue with the map, from a Protoss perspective, is that there's no good way to take a third base against speed roaches. Protoss can position his army at the 2nd or the third, leaving the other undefended, or he can position his army between the two exposing himself to a massive surround with his back up against that outcropping of trees with no space to micro.
This could be fixed a few different ways.
-close off 1 of the two paths between the natural and the tower to create a single entrance into the where P wants to position his army. This solves the flank problem and gives P lanes to micro back from an attack. This leaves no open space in front of the natural, however, so it's not my preferred solution.
-Looking at the top half of the map, you could move the ramp from the natural to the third a bit to the left to lengthen the distance an attacker must travel to bounce between the natural and the third. Then give the defender a more direct path with a backdoor entrance to the natural from the third. Bock this path with a destructible rock to keep FFE viable. You might also shift the position of the mineral line slightly further left so that the defensive distance isn't too short. This keeps the base at the third exposed with 2 attack paths for the Z, but P doesn't have to march his army through a kill zone in order to attempt to defend.
The second problem I've found is that there's not an an open area where you can fight colossi+forcefields with a low tech army. This comes up when you expand in PvP and the other player goes for a 1-base colossus push. Currently, the best place to defend seems to be as the attacker comes up the ramp due south from the top natural, but that position is just a little too small with forcefieldable chokes at the ramp and a short distance north of the ramp between the edge of the main and the tree that splits the attack paths to the natural. If that area were just a tiny bit bigger, it would solve the problem.
I imagine that Terrans and Zergs would also appreciate a slightly larger open area there to defend against forcefields+colossi.
I do love the map for PvT tho. It's my favorite map in the pool for that MU because it produces constant back and forth action with lots of counter-attacking and positional defenses. The watchtowers seem to change hands every other minute.
No offense to the creator of this map, but IMHO Korhal Compound is absolute trash. Advancing through the middle against a competent opponent is suicide, rendering the towers virtually useless as all major engagements will likely occur on the sides of the map. To make matters worse, expanding is pretty awkward in that your third is vulnerable to siege fire and will either easily get sniped or you'll have to fight many battles at that inconvenient location. Everything is just so awkwardly spread out and positioned with high ground cliffs that work against defending your third and attacking through the main making this map painful to play on for me. Thank God for map bans!
I've seen a lot of hate toward this map, and while I would like to see monitor's changes implemented, I love playing on it. As a toss who takes fast thirds against Zerg, I always have long macro games and I love the way that attacks occur along the sides. Given the large main, the ease of positioning my army at the Zel Naga, and the distance between the fourth and the main, as toss, I always have opportunities to do multi-pronged warp prism harass late game. SO MUCH FUN!
This map is beginning to annoy me a lot. As a zerg, you have to take the 4th base as well as the third or risk being attacked by siege units and flanked on either side. Defending these expansions leave your main vulnerable to tons of drops/warp prisms. It's very difficult to hold the third in such positions.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ag7va.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wHfXA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xBVkG.png)
ESVmonitor.
![[image loading]](http://www.wowcata.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/cataclysm_uldum.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wowlevelingguidesdb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ramkahen-uldum.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imba-gamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Uldum.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2bZpP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E4Ncf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2IuJI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sxpii.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBvn6.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QMYXt.gif)
![[image loading]](http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/121783500-3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/121783522-3.jpg)
